Poetics and Narrative Function of Tobit 6 3110612968, 9783110612967

Table of contents :
Preface
Acknowledgements
Contents
Abbreviations
Introduction
Greek Text for Tob 6
1. Some General Issues Regarding Tobit
2. Literary and Narrative Remarks on Tob 6
3. Exegesis of Tobit 6
4. Poetics and Narrative Function of Tobit 6: Synthesis and Conclusions
Bibliography
Index
Subject Index

Citation preview

José Lucas Brum Teixeira Poetics and Narrative Function of Tobit 6

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies

Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Beate Ego, Tobias Nicklas and Kristin de Troyer

Volume 41

José Lucas Brum Teixeira

Poetics and Narrative Function of Tobit 6

Vidimus et approbamus ad normam Statutorum Pontificii Instituti Biblici de Urbe. Romae, die 17 mensis decembris anni 2018 Prof. MAZZINGHI Luca Prof. MORRISON Craig

ISBN 978-3-11-061296-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-061507-4 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-061342-1 ISSN 1865-1666 Library of Congress Control Number: 2019930290 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Preface The book of Tobit has known during the past years a renewed interest within the world of biblical studies; for so long underestimated, either for theological reasons (the book in fact is not considered canonical either by Judaism or by the Churches of the Reformation) or for a mistaken conviction of the poor literary quality of the story narrated in the book. In reality, Tobit’s narrator is never trivial; often capable of irony and always able to offer to its readers/listeners a lively and never predictable story. Furthermore, the book of Tobit, shows itself evermore an important witness of the situation of Diaspora Hebraism between the III and II centuries BCE and thus also important at historical level. In relation to the Hebrew Bible, Tobit offers an intriguing rereading of several biblical texts. In that regard, an intertextual approach to it reveals itself also fruitful. The book of José Lucas Brum Teixeira constitutes a revised version of the doctoral dissertation he defended in 2017 at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. In his work, the author faces up the exegesis of chapter 6 of Tobit, a truly key and central chapter of the book. In it, young Tobiah is forced to detach himself from his father Tobit and, on a travel under the guidance of Azariah (angel Raphael in human form), he goes through a journey that leads him to marriage with Sarah and later to heal his own father. In the panorama of Tobit’s studies, there lacked a work of this magnitude on such key a chapter. An important achievement of Brum Teixeira’s study is in my opinion the ability to combine a classical approach (meaning historical-critical) with an attentive and fruitful narrative analysis which brings to light unexpected details of the text helping the reader to better understand aspects of Tobit 6 otherwise obscure, also helping to better grasp the place of chapter 6 in the framework of the whole book of Tobit. Not only that: on several occasions, the author employs in a fruitful manner an intertextual approach, a case in point being the sections regarding the relationship between Tob 6 and Gen 22 and between Tob 6 and the book of Jonah. Finally, the author offers an up-to-date and complete bibliography, which often goes far back in time. Some details of Tob 6 are carefully examined through excursus that are of interest even of the most demanding scholars. In this regard is worthy seeing the analysis offered on Tobiah’s dog, the fish and its heart, liver and gall, elements of great significance as the story unfolds thereon. We hope the reader will find this book a good companion, to take him on an initiatory journey similar to that of Tobiah! Luca Mazzinghi Pontifical Gregorian University https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110615074-201

Acknowledgements After years of research and reflection, through exciting discoveries and deceitful tracks, a long journey in the company of young Tobiah, Azariah (the angel in disguise) and of course, the dog, my study of Tobit 6 reaches the great public. The prudent, constant and insightful supervision of Prof. Luca Mazzinghi, to whom goes my utmost gratitude, helped me in a special manner to reach this goal. In a complementary manner, the minute, competent and supportive co-supervision of Prof. Craig Morrison, to whom also goes my recognition, for his contribution to this achievement. Heartfelt thanks to you both. The list of those to whom I also ought to say thanks is long, after such lengthy a time to get to this point. Undoubtedly, a warmth thanks is due to my parents, José Gabriel and Elizabeth for their constant support and encouragement, as well as to my brothers and sister, to whom I dedicate the present work. Then to so many friends, priest, religious and lay people, whom I have encountered in this journey and in some way or another granted me their comprehension, aid and support. Friends from different countries where I sojourned during my research and who have been like angels of God in my path, particularly during some difficult moments gone through during the study years. My thankfulness goes especially to Francesco Cupelli, my Italian brother, Fr. Giuseppe Prencipe FSMI, Don Antonio Molle, Fr. Jeroen Smith and the community of Heilige Lodewijk Parochie (Leiden), Fr. Michel Remery and S. John Paul II Foundation, Prof. Dr. Holger Gzella, and to my spiritual director, Msgr. Daniele Libanori SJ. Sincere thanks also to my archbishop Msgr. Anuar Battisti, for his paternal and friendly encouragement and support, especially during these past years. Finally, my acknowledgement also to Dr. Albrecht Döhnert and his team at Walter De Gruyter for having accepted my study in the DCLS series, for the friendly attention received and the professional care of my work, and to the DCLS’ editors for the editorial suggestions. May the Lord of Heaven, to whom goes my most deep and heartfelt recognition and thanksgiving, grant them all His abundant mercy.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110615074-202

Contents Preface 

 V

Acknowledgements  List of Tables  Abbreviations 

1 2

 VII

 XVII  XVII

 1 Introduction  Status Quaestionis and Purpose of the Research  Methodology and Articulation of the Study   3 Greek Text for Tob 6 

 1

 5

 19 1 Some General Issues Regarding Tobit  1.1 Tobit’s Textual Situation   19 1.2 Approximate Dates   21 1.3 Use of Biblical and Non-Biblical Material   23 1.3.1 Tobit’s Use of “Biblical” Material   24 1.3.2 Tobit’s Use of “Non-Biblical” Material   26 1.3.2.1 Folktale Motifs   26 1.3.2.2 Greek Influence   27 1.3.2.3 Non-Bibilical Jewish Material   31 1.4 Collocation Within Second Temple Judaism   33 1.5 Tobit’s Literary Genre   41 Summary   42  45 2 Literary and Narrative Remarks on Tob 6  2.1 Literary Remarks   45 2.1.1 Text Delimitation   45 2.1.2 Literary structure of Tob 6:2–18   48 2.1.2.1 Inner-Structure More in Depth   49 2.1.3 Literary Features, Literary Form and Collocation in Tobit  2.1.3.1 Literary Features of Tob 6   51 2.1.3.2 Literary Form of Tob 6   53 2.1.3.3 Collocation within Tobit   54 2.2 Narrative Remarks   55

 51

X 

 Contents

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 3

3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.2.1 3.1.2.2

3.1.3 3.1.3.1 3.1.3.2

3.1.4 3.1.4.1 3.1.5 3.1.5.1

Catalogue of Components of Tob 6   55 Almsgiving and the Motif Jerusalem in Tob 6?  Preliminary Narrative Analysis   59

 57

 69 Exegesis of Tobit 6  Introductory Annotations   69 Tobiah in the Book of Tobit   69 Travel, Money Retrieval, Existential Quest   71 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2)   72 Exegesis   72 Note on the Composition of V. 2   72 The Lad, the Angel and the Dog (v.2a)   72 Text Critical Note on V.2a   72 Τό παιδίον / τό παιδάριον – ὁ ἄγγελος   74 Commentary   75 Excursus 1 – Tobiah’s Dog: A Literary-Historical Inquiry    78 A. Tobiah’s Dog from a Literary-Narrative Perspective   78 Animals as Literary Device in Bible Stories and in Tobit   78 Tobiah’s Dog in Tob 11:4   80 Tobiah’s Dog: Interpreting the Evidence   81 Tobiah’s Dog: Further Literary Remarks   82 B. Tobiah’s Dog from a Historical Perspective   83 From Patristic Times to the 18th Century   83 From the 19th Century to the Present   87 Statute of Dogs in the ANE, Ancient Israel and the OT   88 Tobiah’s Dog in Art   90 Summary   93 The Lad and the Angel Move Along Together (v.2b)   94 Exegesis   94 Text Critical Note on V.2b   94 Ἀμφότεροι – κοινῶς   94 Intertextuality: Tob 6 and Genesis 22 in Dialogue?   95 Premisse: Tobit 6 and the Patriarchal Traditions of Genesis   95 Tob 6 and Gen 22   96 Commentary   98 Night Befalls the Travelers (v.2c)   99 Τυγχάνω   99 Commentary   100 Staying Overnight by the Tigris River (v.2d)   102 Sense of the Preposition ἐπί   102

Contents 

3.1.5.2 3.1.6 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.2.1 3.2.3 3.2.3.1 3.2.3.2 3.2.4 3.2.4.1 3.2.4.2 3.2.4.3 3.2.4.4

3.2.5 3.2.5.1 3.2.6 3.2.6.1 3.2.7 3.2.7.1 3.2.8 3.2.8.1 3.2.8.2 3.2.9 3.2.9.1 3.2.9.2 3.2.9.3

 103 Note on the Geography of the Travel  Commentary   105 Syntax of 6:2   106 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c)   107 Structure of Tob 6:3–6c    107 Tobiah Faces the Big Fish (v.3)    109 Exegesis   109 Structure of V.3   109 Tobiah Descends to the Waters of the Tigris (v.3a)   110 Καταβαίνω   110 Περινίπτω   110 The Big Fish Tries Swallowing Tobiah’s Foot (v.3b)   111 Ἀναπηδάω   111 Sense of Adjective μέγας   111 Καταπίνω   112 Tοὺς πόδας/τὸν πόδα   112 Intertextuality: Tobit and Jonah in Dialogue?   113 Excursus 2 – Interpretations Regarding Fishes in Tobit’s Surrounding Cultural Milieu   119 A. Literal Interpretations   120 B. Symbolic Interpretations   122 In the Ancient Near East and Greece   122 In Ancient Jewish Sources   124 In Ancient Christian Sources   126 Summary   128 And Tobiah Cried Out Loud (v.3c)   129 Κράζω   129 Commentary   129 Raphael, Tobiah and the Fish (vv.4–6)   132 Exegesis   132 Note on the Literary Structure of the Section   132 The Angel’s First Command to the Lad (v.4a)   133 ̓ Επιλαβοῦ /ἐγκρατὴς γενοῦ   133 Tobiah Overpowers the Big Fish (v.4b)   134 Κρατέω   134 Ἀναφέρω   135 The Angel’s Second Command (v.5a)   135 ̓ Ανασχίζω   135 ̓ Εξαιρέω   136 Ἀποτίθημι   136

 XI

XII 

 Contents

3.2.10 3.2.10.1 3.2.10.2 3.2.10.3 3.2.11 3.2.11.1 3.2.12 3.2.12.1 3.2.12.2 3.2.13 3.2.13.1 3.2.13.2 3.2.13.3 3.2.14 3.2.15 3.2.15.1 3.2.15.2 3.2.15.3 3.2.15.4 3.2.15.5 3.2.15.6 3.2.15.7 3.3

3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.2.1 3.3.3 3.3.3.1 3.3.3.2 3.3.3.3

“For they Are of Medicinal Value” (v.5b)   137 ̓Eστιν γὰρ εἰς  ΄  137 Φάρμακον   137 Χρήσιμος   138 Tobiah Faithfully Gathers the Instructed Fish Organs (v.6a)   138 Συνάγω   138 Cooking and Eating of the Fish (v.6b)   139 Text Critical Note   139 O̓πτάω   140 The Salting from the Fish for the Way (v.6c)   140 Text Critical Note   140 Ἀφίημι   141 Ἀλίζω   141 Quinary Scheme Applied to Tob 6:2–6c   142 Commentary   143 Conclusive Remarks on the Fish Incident   147 Tobiah’s Interaction with the Fish: Between Symbolic and Actuality   147 Narrative Setting of the Fish-Incident   148 Narrator’s Play with Spatial Coordinates   149 Tobiah’s Actions Regarding the Fish   150 Relationship Between the Fish-Incident and the Marriage Account (Tob 7–8)   150 Tobiah’s Nuptial Night According to Tob 8   151 Parallels Between the Fish-Incident and the Marital Night   152 Summary   153 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)   154 Exegesis   154 Structure   152 Continuing Journey Tobiah Approaches Median Territory (v.6d)   155 The Temporal Conjunction/Preposition (ἕως)   155 Commentary   155 Tobiah Questions Azariah about the Fish’s Organs (v.7)   156 Exegesis   156 Text Critical Note   156 Sense and Function of Adverb τότε   158 ̓ Αδελφός   158 Intertextuality: Once More Tob 6 and Gen 22   159 Commentary   162

Contents 

3.3.4 3.3.4.1 3.3.4.2 3.3.4.3 3.3.4.4 3.3.4.5

3.3.4.6

3.3.5 3.3.5.1 3.3.5.2 3.3.5.3 3.3.5.4 3.3.5.5 3.3.5.6

3.4

3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3

3.4.3.1 3.4.3.2

3.4.4.1 3.4.4.2

 XIII

 166 “Medicinal” Value of the Heart and the Liver (v.8)  Exegesis   166 Narrative Significance of Raphael’s Answer   166 Sense of Verb κάπνισον   167 Sense of the Term ἀπάντημα   168 Sense of the Phrase δαιμονίου ἢ πνεύματος πονηροῦ   168 The Nature of Sarah’s Demonic Vexation   173 Excursus 3 – Fish Heart & Liver’s Motif in Tobit. A Source-Critical Inquiry   174 Summary   180 Irony and Humor in Tobit’s Heart & Liver Ritual?   181 Excursus 4 – The Book of Tobit and the Problem of Magic   183 Commentary   194 The Medicinal Value of the Fish’s Gall (v.9)   195 Exegesis   195 Text Critical Note   195 ̓ Εγχρίω   195 Ἀναβαίνω   196 Λεύκωμα   197 ̓ Εμφυσάω   197 Verb ὑγιαίνω in Tobit   199 Historical Note: Fish-Gall for Healing Eye Problems   199 Commentary   200 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18)   201 Introductory Note   201 Exegesis   202 Structure   202 Parallelisms Between Tobiah and Sarah   202 Raphael Takes the Floor and Addresses Tobiah (vv.10–11a)   203 Exegesis   203 Text Critical Note on V. 10   203 Structure of V.11a   204 Commentary   205 “It is Necessary that We Spend This Night at Raguel’s House” (vv.11b–12)   206 Exegesis   206 Structure   206 Δεῖ ἡμᾶς αὐλισθῆναι   207

XIV  3.4.4.3 3.4.4.4 3.4.4.5 3.4.4.6 3.4.5 3.4.5.1 3.4.5.2 3.4.5.3 3.4.5.4 3.4.5.5

3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.2.1 3.5.2.2 3.5.3 3.5.3.1 3.5.4 3.6

3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 3.6.4 3.6.4.1

 Contents

Inner “Hook Ups” in Tob 6:11b–12   208 Κληρονομέω   209 Raphael’s Characterization of Sarah   210 Text Critical Note on V.12e   212 Commentary   214 “It is Your Right to Take Her as Spouse” (v.13)   215 Exegesis   216 Structure   216 Λαβεῖν /λημψόμεθα   216 Λαλήσω /λαλήσομεν   217 Δεδικαίωταί   218 Θάνατον κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν τῆς βίβλου Μωυσέως   218 ̓ Επίσταμαι/γινώσκειν   220 O̓φειλήσειν θάνατον   221 Kατὰ τὴν κρίσιν τῆς βίβλου Μωυσέως   222 Number’s Prescription Regarding the “Daughters of Zelophedad” (Num 36:6–9)   224 Kληρονομία καθήκει   226 Irony in Raphael’s Statement of Tob 6:13e and Raguel’s in 7:10   227 Commentary   228 Tobiah Knew about the Demon! (Tob 6:14–15)   229 Exegesis   230 Composition of VV.14–15   230 “I Heard That...They All Died In The Bridal Chamber” (v.14)   230 Text Critical Note   230 Εἰσεπορεύοντο πρὸς (v.14b)   231 “I too Am Afraid of That Demon” (v.15a)   231 Text Critical Note   231 “No Other Son to Bury Them” (vv.15cd)   232 Commentary   233 “Don’t You Remember Your Father’s Commands?” (Tob 6:16–18j)   236 Exegesis   236 Structure   236 The Theme of Remembrance in V.16b   238 Μὴ λόγον ἔχε /μὴ φοβοῦ (vv.16d.18d.18j)   240 Further Specifications Regarding the Fish’s Heart & Liver (v.17b)   240 Sense of the phrase τέφρα(ν) τῶν θυμιαμάτων   242

3.6.5 3.6.6 3.6.7 3.6.8 3.6.9 3.6.10 3.6.11 3.6.12 3.7 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.8 4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.4.1 4.1.4.2 4.1.4.3 4.1.4.4 4.1.4.5 4.1.4.6 4.1.4.7 4.1.4.8 4.1.4.9 4.1.5 4.1.5.1 4.1.5.2 4.1.5.3 4.1.5.4 4.1.5.5

Contents 

 XV

 243 Kαὶ οὐκέτι μὴ φανῇ περὶ αὐτὴν (v.18b)  Μεμερισμένη πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος (v.18f)   243 “Children Like Brothers” (v.18i)   245 The Angel’s Emphasis on Endogamy   246 Raphael’s Invitation to Prayer (vv.18cd)   248 Vulgate’s Unique Reading for Tob 6:16–18   251 Women and Gender Roles in Tob 6   253 Final Remarks on Tob 6:11–18j   255 Commentary   256 “And His Heart Clung to Her...” (Tob 6:18k–n)   257 Exegesis   257 Tob 6:18k–n in the Main Witnesses   257 Ἀδελφὴ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ (v.18l)   257 Ἀγαπάω /κολλάω /καρδία (vv.18mn)   258 Commentary   259 Addendum: Tobiah’s Final Interaction with Raphael in Tob 11 

 260

Poetics and Narrative Function of Tobit 6: Synthesis  265 and Conclusions 

 265 Poetics of Tob 6  Story of a Journey   265 A Pedagogical Story   266 Shaped Upon Patriarchal Stories of Genesis   267 For Characters’ Construction   267 The Lad   268 The Angel   268 The Dog   269 The Fish   269 The Demon   269 Raguel   270 Sarah   270 The Lord of Heaven   270 Tobit   271 A Compendium of Tobit’s Main Themes and Motifs   271 “The Lad, the Angel and the Dog”   271 Filial Piety and Obedience   272 Healing and Salvation   273 Kinship and Family   273 Genders’ Roles, Marriage, Sexuality   273

XVI  4.1.5.6 4.1.5.7 4.1.5.8 4.1.5.9 4.1.5.10 4.1.6 4.1.6.1 4.1.6.2 4.1.6.3 4.1.6.4 4.1.6.5 4.1.6.6

4.1.6.7 4.1.7 4.1.8 4.1.9 4.1.10 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3

 Contents

Endogamy   274 Death and Burial   274 The Theme of Remembrance   275 Prayer   275 “Divine Providence”   275 Articulated With Literary, Narrative and Rhetorical Resourcefulness   276 Interaction   276 Revelation Plot and Resolutive Dimension of Tob 6   276 Distortions of Time and Vagueness in References of Place  Reorientation   278 Inversion   279 Repetition   279 Structuring Devices   280 Command-Implementation Pattern   280 Leitwortstil   281 Intertextuality   281 Irony   282 Play with Spatial Coordinates   282 Psychological Appeal   283 Dynamics of Anticipations   284 Corollary: Stylized Feature of Tob 6   284 Narrative Function of Tob 6   285 An Inventory of Tobit’s Main Teachings   285 A Programmatic Story   286 “Catalyzer” of Tobiah’s Maturation   287

Bibliography  Index 

 289

 313

Subject Index 

 322

 278

List of Tables Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 3.10 Table 3.11 Table 3.12 Table 3.13 Table 3.14 Table 3.15 Table 3.16

Onomastica in Tobit (GII)   46 Inner structure of Tob 6 in outline   50 Narrative components of Tob 6   56 Tob 6:2ab (GII) compared with Tob 5:17 (GI)   73 Nineveh/Ecbatana in Tob 3–11   105 Structure of Tob 6:3-6d (I)   108 Structure of Tob 6:3–6   108 Structure of Tob 6:3   109 Literary structure of Tob 6:5   133 Quinary scheme applied to Tob 6:2–6c   142 Structure of Tob 6:6d–9   154 Tobiah’s questions in Tob 5   164 Structure and labeling of Tob 6:10–18   202 Structure of Tob 6:11b–12 (GII)   206 Structure Tob 6:13 (GII)   216 Comparative view of Tob 6:13e and 7:10   227 Structured Version of Tob 6:16–18j   236 Tob 4:19 Compared with Tob 6:16   238 Tob 6:16–18 (Vg 6:16–22)   252

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110615074-203

Abbreviations AASOR AB ABD ADPV AJN AJO AJPh AJS Review ALD ANE ANES.SS Ant AP AYBD BA BAGD BBB BDB BDF BETL BI Bib BiblInterp BibRev BN BZ BZAW CBCNEB CBQ CBR CCSL CEJL CPJ CR:BS CRINT DCLS DCLY DDD Diss. DSD EDNT EHS.T EJ

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins American Journal of Nephrology American Journal of Ophthalmology American Journal of Philology Association of Jewish Studies Review Ancient Levi Document Ancient Near East Ancient Near East Studies Supplement Series Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary Biblical Archaeologist Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Biblioteca Bíblica Básica The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon Blass – Debrunner – Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblical Intersections Biblica Biblical Interpretation Bible Review Biblische Notizen Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible Catholic Biblical Quarterly Currents in Biblical Research Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Series Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Year Book Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible Dissertation Dead Sea Discoveries: A Journal of Current Research on the Scrolls and Related Literature Balz – Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Europäische Hochschulschriften. Theologie Encyclopedia Judaica

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110615074-204

XX  EJ EJL EThR ETL ExpTim EZ FAT FoSub FzB GAP GBH GELS GI GII GK GQA HALOT HATIS HThKAT HTR IEED Int JAAP JAAR JAL JAOS JAP JBL JBQ JCS JE JESHO JHepatol JJS JoP JQR JRAS JRs JSEm JSHJ JSHRZ JSJ JSJS JSNT.SS JSOT JSOT.SS

 Abbreviations

European Judaism. The Journal for the New Europe Early Judaism and Its Literature Études Théologiques et Religieuses Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensis The Expository Times Early Zoroastrianism Forschungen zum Alten Testament Fontes et subsidia ad Bibliam Pertinentes Forschung zur Bibel Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Joüon – Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew Muraoka, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint Short Form of Tobit Story in Greek Long Form of Tobit Story in Greek Gesenius – Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar Muraoka, Grammar of Qumran Aramaic Koehler – Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Muraoka, A Greek ≈ Hebrew/Aramaic Two-Way Index to the Septuagint Herder Teologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Interpretation Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis Journal of the American Academy of Religion Jewish Apocryphal Literature Series Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Analytical Psychology Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Biblical Quarterly Journal of Cuneiform Studies Jewish Encyclopedia Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of Hepatology Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Pragmatics Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland Journal of Religion & Society Journal for Semitics Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series

Abbreviations 

JSP JSP.SS KSTh LDiv LEH LHBOTS LNTS LS LSSup. LSTS LXX MNEM MRLA MSU MT NAB NEA NIDB NovT NRSV NTS NVBTA NVBTO OBO OBS OEBB OG OL OLD PAPS PG PGM PL PSV RB RBL REG RevBib RevQ RHPR RHR RivB Suppl. RivBib RRJ RSR RStB

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie Lectio Divina Lust – Eynikel – Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Library of New Testament Studies Liddell – Scott, Greek-English Lexicon Liddell – Scott, Greek English Lexicon Supplement Library of Second Temple Studies Septuagint Mnemosyne. A Journal of Classical Studies Magical and Religious Literature of Late Antiquity Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens, Göttingen Massoretic Text New American Bible Near Eastern Archeology New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Novum Testamentum New Revised Standard Version New Testament Studies Nuova Versione della Bibbia dai Testi Antichi Nuovissima Versione della Bibbia dai Testi Originali Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Österreichische Biblische Studien The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible Old Greek (= LXX’s “first” translation) Old Latin Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Patrologia Graeca Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae Patrologia Latina Parola spirito e vita Revue Biblique Review of Biblical Literature Revue des Études Grecques Revista Bíblica Revue de Qumran Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses Revue de l’Histoire des Religions Supplementi alla Rivista Biblica Rivista Biblica Review of Rabbinic Judaism Recherches de Science Religieuse Ricerche Storico-Bibliche

 XXI

XXII  S SBLDS SBLSP SC SDSS Sef Sem SEPT SJOT Soc Anim SSG StBib STDJ STP StPat SubBi TAR TBN TBT TBW TCSV TDNT TDOT TECC Tel Aviv ThWQ TSAJ Vg VT VTSup WBC WGS WJM WUNT ZAH ZAW ZRGG ZWT

 Abbreviations

Codex Sinaiticus Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Sources Chrétiennes Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature Sefarad Semitica Septuagint Commentary Series Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Society & Animals Muraoka, A Syntax of Septuagint Greek Studi Biblici Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Second Temple Period Studia Patavina Subsidia Biblica Targum Themes in Biblical Narrative The Bible Today The Biblical World Trends in Classics Supplementary Volumes Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” de la Biblia Políglota Matritense Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Vulgate Vetus Testamentum Supplements to VT World Biblical Commentary Weeks – Gathercole – Stuckenbruck, The Book of Tobit Western Journal of Medicine Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für Althebraistik Zeitschrift für altestestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Religions-und Geistesgeschichte Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie

Introduction The book of Tobit,1 which according to its first line seems to be devoted to its incipit’s character (Tobit),2 in effect, occupies itself mostly with Tobit’s son, Tobiah, who from chapter 4 onwards becomes its pivotal character.3 Having prayed God for death, Tobit remembers a great sum of money, left in deposit with a certain Gabel, relative of his, at Rages of Media (see Tob 4:1; 1:13–14). Such remembrance triggers the travel of his son Tobiah to retrieve the fortune (Tob 5–11). God’s angel, announced in Tob 3 to be sent healing blind Tobit and demonic tormented Sarah, enters the story in human disguise as Tobiah’s hired travel companion (Tob 5). On the road with the angel, Tobiah faces a big fish from which he collects the means for the announced healings and is carefully prepared to become the agent of Sarah’s deliverance from the demon. As a result of that travel Tobiah accepts marrying Sarah (Tob 6). For Tobit’s author, “taking wife” (i.e. getting married) is an expression of having reached manhood (see Tob 1:9). Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah is recounted right after that travel (Tob 7–10).

1 Status Quaestionis and Purpose of the Research Interest in the book of Tobit has increased exponentially in the past thirty years.4 Dozens of articles besides a series of monographs have enriched Tobit studies, discussing various of its arguments.5 Tob 6, besides the attention it received

1 For a first overview on Tobit and its main themes, see E. J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, MA 1988) 51–59. 2 Recall Tob 1:1 (βίβλος λόγων Τωβὶθ). Although often translated as “story” (for example, by Fitzmyer and Moore), in light of recent contributions and considering the centrality of Tobiah in the story, the term λόγων in that phrase is better rendered if translated simply as “words” (perhaps to be understood in the sense of “teachings”). See J. A. Fitzmyer, Tobit (CEJL; Berlin 2003) 91; C. A. Moore, Tobit : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 40A; New York 1996) 99; A. B. Perrin, “Capturing the Voices of Pseudepigraphic Personae: On the Form and Function of Incipits in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls”, DSD 20 (2013) 98–123, 106–109. 3 The book of Tobit in fact ends referring Tobiah’s last days and death (see Tob 14:12–15). 4 See F. M. Macatangay, The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit (DCLS 12; Berlin 2011) 3–5; For a presentation in that regard until 1999, see R. A. Spencer, “The Book of Tobit in Recent Research”, CR:BS 7 (1999) 147–180; From 2000 to 2014, see A. B. Perrin, “An Almanac of Tobit Studies: 2000–2014”, CBR 13/1 (2014) 107–142. 5 A lengthy bibliography of main commentaries and studies on Tobit until 2003 may be found in Fitzmyer, Tobit, 62–88. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110615074-001

2 

 Introduction

on main commentaries,6 and some of its components in various contributions, had not been object of a thorough study. Tobiah’s travel with the angel (strictly speaking the account of Tob 6) in effect constitutes a singular moment of Tobit’s story. In that “road account,” in which Tobiah interacts alone and in a peculiar manner with God-sent angel Raphael (in “disguise” as an Israelite with the name Azariah), Tobiah seems to grow as character and to be “equipped” for his leading role in the rest of the story. Considered more closely, Tob 6 also reveals a remarkable richness of narrative components and ideas. Moreover, Tob 6 anticipates the rest of the story pretty much to its end. From such considerations, Tob 6 emerges particularly significant at level of plot, character and ideas in Tobit. Some previous commentators, suggested interesting ideas regarding Tob 6, particularly in relation to Tobiah. In the early seventies, L. Alonso Schökel spoke of an educational dimension of Tobiah’s travel with the angel.7 About a decade later, P. Deselaers suggested the idea of Tobiah’s maturation during that travel8 and I. Nowell, spoke of Tobiah’s growth in his absence from home.9 M. Rabenau then highlighted the centrality in Tobit of Tobiah’s travel story in company of the angel.10 More recently, N. Jacobs introduced the ideas of liminal state and rite of passage regarding Tobiah’s travel and L. Mazzinghi highlighted Tobiah’s matured features after that travel.11 J. Quezada del Río again spoke of Tob 6 as a “rite of

6 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 200–221; Moore, Tobit, 195–215; B. Ego, Buch Tobit (JSHRZ 2/6; Gütersloh 1999) 960–966; H. Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit (HThKAT; Freiburg 2000) 114–122; J. Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit (Estella 2000) 123–134; Although a bit outdated, still worthy mentioning are the commentaries of G. Priero, Tobia (La Sacra Bibbia; Torino – Roma 1953) 98–107; S. Virgulin, Tobia (Nuovissima Versione della Bibbia dai Testi Originali 13; Roma 1978) 87–97. 7 See L. Alonso Schökel, – M. Iglesias González, Rut, Tobías, Judit, Ester (Los Libros Sagrados 8; Madrid 1973) 68. 8 See P. Deselaers, Das Buch Tobit : Studien zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Theologie (OBO 43; Göttingen 1982) 123, note 149; For a revision of Deselaers’ work see I. Nowell, “Review of P. Deselaers, Das Buch Tobit : Studien zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Theologie”, CBQ 46/2 (1984) 306–307. 9 See I. Nowell, The Book of Tobit. Narrative Technique and Theology (Diss. Catholic University of America; Washington, DC 1983) 142, http://search.proquest.com/docview/303135442/; Both ideas of maturation and growth are accepted also by Moore in his commentary. See Moore, Tobit, 209–210. 10 See M. Rabenau, Studien zum Buch Tobit (BZAW 220; Berlin 1994) 100–116; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Review of M. Rabenau, Studien zum Buch Tobit (BZAW 220; Berlin 1994)”, JBL 116/2 (1997) 348–350. 11 See N. S. Jacobs, “I Saw that the Delicacies Were Many”. A Commentary on Food and Eating in the Book of Tobit (Diss. Durham University; Durham (UK) 2007) 158–159, http://etheses.dur. ac.uk/2443.; L. Mazzinghi, “‘Sono stato mandato per metterti alla prova’ (Tb 12,13): La sofferenza dell’anziano Tobi”, PSV 55/1 (2007) 81–94, 92–93.

2 Methodology and Articulation of the Study 

 3

passage from childhood to adulthood”12 and G. Xeravits of it as “a symbolic trip – a sort of rite of passage.”13 Following the above mentioned hints and suggestions, the present study explores in depth the literary, narrative and ideological articulation of Tob 6 (namely, its poetics),14 to show that through it, the narrator in fact aims to bring about Tobiah’s characterological development (in that light Tob 6 may be seen as a sort of “rite of passage” for Tobiah).15 Considering the significance of Tob 6, not only at level of character but also for plot development and resolution, the study also deepens its narrative function with respect to the book as a whole. Considering that several components of Tob 6 continue to challenge commentators (like, for instance, the mysterious dog of 6:2 or the statement about “death penalty according to the book of Moses” for disrespect of endogamy of 6:13), while discussing those main arguments, the study also revisits such puzzling elements.

2 Methodology and Articulation of the Study Tobit, as recognized by most commentators, displays a skillful narrative articulation. “Tobit is a rich and complex literary work;”16 and “a sophisticated and carefully crafted narrative.”17 Although there were also dissonant voices in that

12 See J. Quezada DEL Río, “La situación de la mujer en el libro de Tobías”, Revista Bíblica 3/4 (2009) 149–180, 154. If not stated otherwise, English translations of quoted texts, from the various ancient and modern languages operated in this study, are work of ours. 13 See G. G. Xeravits, “‘Stranger in a Strange Land’: Tobiah’s Journey”, The Stranger in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Tradition. Papers Read at the First Meeting of the JBSCE, Piliscsaba, 2009 (ed. J. Dušek – G. G. Xeravits) (DCLS 4; Berlin – New York 2010) 86–94, 93. 14 See M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, IND 1985) 2. 15 See in that regard the interesting study of S. Wilson, Making Men: The Male Coming-of-Age Theme in the Hebrew Bible (New York, NY 2015) 16 See G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Tobit”, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. M. E. Stone) (CRINT 2/2; Assen 1984) 40–46, 40. 17 See G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Tobit”, Outside the Bible. Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (ed. L. H. Feldman – J. Kugel – L. H. Schiffman) (Philadelphia 2013) III 2631– 2661, 2631; See also Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 37; H. Engel, “Auf zuverlässigen Wegen und in Gerechtigkeit :  religiöses Ethos in der Diaspora nach dem Buch Tobit”, Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Für Norbert Lohfink SJ (Hrsg. G. Braulik) (Freiburg i. B. 1993) 83–100, 86.

4 

 Introduction

regard,18 Nowell has convincingly demonstrated not only the refinement of Tobit’s narrative technique, but also that Tobit’s author “uses his literary art to construct his story in such a way that his message is conveyed through all the narrative techniques at his command.”19 Such feature of the book as a whole is also detectable in Tob 6. Thus, considering the purposes of our study, a narrative approach has been privileged.20 In revisiting Tob 6’s puzzling items, some historical critical discussion is also integrated in the overall narrative approach, as a mode of excursus. Tob 6’s peculiar use of previous biblical traditions in its recounting demanded also some discussion at intertextual level.21 The study is organized in four chapters. Chapter 1 presents a state of the question of some important general issues regarding Tobit, considered necessary premises for the exegesis of Tob 6. For a better appreciation of its narrative significance and thus of the sense of the present research, Chapter 2 presents a preliminar literary and narrative overview of Tob 6. The core and lengthier part of this study constitutes Chapter 3, the narrative-historical exegesis of Tob 6, in its seven micro-units.22 Chapter 4 then summarizes the results of the exegesis of Tob 6, systematizing its poetics and narrative function.

18 Alonso Schökel, for instance wrote that Tobit “como obra literaria es un libro que no convence.” See Alonso Schökel, – Iglesias González, Tobías, 39; Paradoxically, in a later contribution on the bible’s narrative art, the author upraises Tobit’s use of biblical traditions and irony. See L. Alonso Schökel, L’arte di raccontare la storia. Storiografia e poetica narrativa nella Bibbia (Lectio 6; Cinisello Balsamo (MI) 2013) 133–146. 19 See Nowell, Tobit, 287. 20 From the various essential contributions in the field of biblical narratology, besides Sternberg referred in note 15 above, for the narrative methodology we follow R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York 1981); S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield 1989); D. L. Marguerat, – Y. Bourquin, La Bible se raconte. Initiation à l’analyse narrative (Paris 1998); English translation: D. L. Marguerat, – Y. Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories (London 1999); in Italian: L. Zappella, Manuale di analisi narrativa biblica (Strumenti 65; Torino 2014); For an introduction on the narrative methodology with ample bibliography, it remains a reference the work of J. L. Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us”. Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (Subsidia Biblica 13; Rome 1990) 21 See in that regard G. D. Miller, “Intertextuality in OT Research”, CBR 9/3 (2010) 283–309; K. Larsson, “Intertextual Density, Quantifying Imitation”, JBL 133/2 (2014) 309–331. 22 The rationale of that subdivision is found in chapter 2 of the present study.

Greek Text for Tob 6 Origen and Jerome in their respective times knew a Semitic version of the Book of Tobit, respectively in Hebrew and Aramaic.1 Fragments of four Aramaic manuscripts and one Hebrew found in Qumran’s Cave IV, supported the view of a Semitic original for Tobit. There is no full agreement whether the book was written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic,2 although most scholars today for various reasons tend to consider Aramaic as Tobit’s most probable original language.3 Unfortunately, Qumran texts cover roughly 40% of the Book in Aramaic and 13% in Hebrew, in a very fragmentary manner, with only a few substantial portions of text.4 Even if of great significance for text criticism, studies on Tobit continue to be based rather on the extant Greek translations. There follows the base Greek text of Tob 6 for this study, with our English translation. The Greek text is fundamentally that of Göttingen’s edition5 for the long form of the story (GII).6 The text of GII here, however, has been further edited to facilitate its exegesis in chapter 3. Thus, it is ulteriorly subdivided in its verse numbering. The resultant subdivided “verses” are indicated in the reference text through lower case letters (a, b, c...), between square brackets ([ ]) placed in the end of each segment. The text is displayed in seven sections, signaled through roman numerals (I–VII).7 A single asterisk (*) marks in it the beginning and end of GII sequences (of words or phrases) that are supported or contrasted by the main witnesses displayed in footnote, whereas double asterisks (**) indicate readings not present in GII. Qumran readings are from

1 See Origen, Ep. Ad Africanum 19 (13) (SC 302, 562); Hieronymus, Praef. in Tob. (PL 29, 25–26). 2 See in that regard the interesting contribution of A. B. Perrin, “From Lingua Franca to Lingua Sacra: The Scripturalization of Tobit in 4QTobe”, VT 66 (2016) 117–132. 3 For a presentation of the state of the question in that regard see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 18–25. See also; G. Toloni, L’originale del libro di Tobia : Studio filologico-linguistico (TECC 71; Madrid 2004) 4 See J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic and Hebrew Fragments of Tobit from Qumran Cave 4”, CBQ 57/4 (1995) 655–675. 5 See R. Hanhart, Tobit (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum VIII,5; Göttingen 1983) 108–118. 6 Tobit story is transmitted in long and short forms. Most Greek texts and ancient translations, transmit a short form of the story, while other important Greek MSS, like Codex Sinaiticus, together with the Old Latin translations, a long form. Several arguments have demonstrated significantly the oldness (and thus the priority) of the long form of the story over the short. In Tobit studies, the textual family that groups Greek witnesses to the short story form is referred as GI, while those who preserve the long, GII. The rationale for our textual choice is expanded in chapter 1 of this study. 7 The rationale of such subdivision is given in chapter 2 of this study. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110615074-002

6 

 Greek text for Tob 6

DJD occasionally compared with those from ATTM II.8 Old Latin (OL) readings are from WGS.9 Moreover, the Greek text is accompanied by an original critical apparatus that facilitates the reader access to various readings of Tob 6 and may serve him as a companion for the evaluation of the author’s proposals of textual emendations (discussed in the exegesis). Whereas the Greek text is only retouched formally, readings in curly braces ({ }) in our English translation are resultant of textual emendation.

8 See M. Broshi et al. (ed.), Qumran Cave 4. XIV. Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD 19; Oxford 1995) 1–76; K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, Deutscharamäische Wortliste, Register (Göttingen 2004) 178–181. 9 See S. Weeks, – S. J. Gathercole, – L. T. Stuckenbruck, eds. The Book of Tobit. Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions, with Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac (FoSub 3; Berlin – New York 2004) 178–201; Also consulted, A. E. Brooke, – N. McLean, – H. S. J. Thackeray, eds. The Old Testament in Greek. According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from other Uncial Manuscripts, With a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint. II. The Later Historical Books. III. Esther, Judith, Tobit (Cambridge 1940) III/I, 123–143; See also C. J. Wagner, ed. Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse. Griechisch – Lateinisch – Syrisch – Hebräisch – Aramäisch. Mit einem Index zu den Tobit-Fragmenten vom Toten Meer (MSU 28; Göttingen 2003)

Greek Text for Tob 6 

 7

CODE

REFERS TO

DATE

GREEK

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6

Codex Vaticanus gr. 1209 Codex Sinaiticus Ferrara, 187 I (Holmes-Parsons 106) Oxyrhynchus 1076 Oxyrhynchus 1594 PSI inv. Cap. 46

Mid. 4th cent. CE 4th CE 14th. CE minuscle 6th CE Late 3rd CE 220–250 CE

LATIN

L1 L2 L3 L4

Codex Regius 3564 Alcalà Bible Codex Reginensis 7 Codex Amiatinus (Vulgate)

9th CE 9th/10th CE 9th CE 8th CE

HEBREW

H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7

4Q200 Cairo Genizah T-S A 45.26 Constantinople 1516 Constantinople 1519 North French Miscellany Codex Or. Gaster 28 ’Otsar Haqqodesh

30 BCE–20 CE 13th CE 1516 1519 13th CE 19th (copy of 15th CE MS) 1851

ARAMAIC

Abbreviations in the Greek Text

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 S1 S2

4Q196 4Q197 4Q198 4Q199 Bodleian Aramaic Text Wadi Natrum Syr. MS 27 Buchanan Bible

50 BCE 25 BCE–25 CE 50 BCE ? Late 14th–15th CE 7th–8th CE 12th CE

The abbreviations are those of WGS. The remaining information is a synthesis of ours from Weeks, – Gathercole, – Stuckenbruck, WGS, 9–48; Qumran fragments’ dating are Fitzmyer’s (paleographical dating according to the script’s type). See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 10–12.

8 

 Greek text for Tob 6

I. 6:2 καὶ *ἐξῆλθεν*1 *τὸ παιδίον*2 *καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ*,3 *καὶ ὁ κύων ἐξῆλθεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ*4 *καὶ ἐπορεύθη μετ᾽ αὐτῶν*5 [a]· καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἀμφότεροι {κοινῶς}6 [b] *καὶ ἔτυχεν αὐτοῖς νὺξ μία*7 [c], καὶ ηὐλίσθησαν ἐπὶ τοῦ Τίγριδος ποταμοῦ [d]. II. 3 καὶ κατέβη *τὸ παιδίον*8 *περινίψασθαι τοὺς πόδας*9 εἰς τὸν Τίγριν ποταμόν [a], καὶ ἀναπηδήσας *ἰχθὺς μέγας*10 *ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος*11 *ἐβούλετο καταπιεῖν*12 *τὸν πόδα*13 *τοῦ παιδαρίου*14 [b], *καὶ ἔκραξεν*15 [c]. 4 καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος *τῷ παιδαρίῳ*16 εἶπεν *Ἐπιλαβοῦ*17 καὶ *ἐγκρατὴς τοῦ ἰχθύος γενοῦ*18 [a]. *καὶ ἐκράτησεν τὸ παιδάριον*19 τοῦ ἰχθύος καὶ *ἀνήνεγκεν*20 αὐτὸν *ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν*21 [b]. 5 *καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἄγγελος*22

1 GI recasts the phrase thus: οἱ δὲ πορευόμενοι τὴν ὁδὸν 2 OL: filius illorum. L2: Tobias. L3: puer. 3 OL: et angelus cum illo. 4Q197 (4 i 5): ‫“( ]מלא[כא עמה‬the [an]gel with him”). 4 GI omits completely the reference to the “dog” in v.2 (mentioned in 5:17: καὶ ὁ κύων τοῦ παιδαρίου μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, reading unique to GI). OL omits this initial sentence regarding the dog. Vg: et canis secutus est eum. 5 OL: et canis secutus est eos. 6 Reconstructed with 4Q197 (4 i 5) following ATTM (178) and the OL (pariter). 7 GI: ἦλθον ἑσπέρας. OL: prima nox. Vg: prima mansione. 8 GI: τὸ δὲ παιδάριον. OL: Thobias; L2: Tobias; L3: puer. 4Q197 (4 i 6): ‫[“( ונחת עלימ]א‬the] lad went down”). 9 GI omits the reference to the feet and reads περικλύσασθαι (“to wash oneself”). OL: lauaret lauare pedes suos. 4Q197 (4 i 6–7) reconstructed in the gap by Beyer (ATTM, 178): ‫למרחץ רגלוהי‬. Vg: lauaret pedes suos. 10 GI omits the adjective. OL: [exsiliuit] piscis [de aqua] magnus. 4Q197 (4 i 6–7): ‫“( נו[ן חד רב‬a big fi[sh]”). Vg: piscis inmanis. 11 GI: ἀπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ. OL: de aqua. 4Q197 (4 i 6): ‫מן ]מיא‬. 12 GI: ἐβουλήθη. OL: [pene puerum] deuorauerat. 4Q197 (4 i 6): ‫למב[לע‬. Vg: ad deuorandum. 13 Omitted by GI. OL: pedes. 4Q197 (4 i 6–7): ‫“( רגל‬foot of”). 14 GI: τὸ παιδάριον. OL: eius. 4Q197 (4 i 6–7): ‫[“( עלימ]א‬the] lad”). OL adds after pedes eius, the phrase pene puerum deuorauerat, which could be an intent of harmonization with GI or a gloss. 15 GI omits v.3c. OL: et exclamauit puer. Vg: clamauit voce magna. 16 GI: αὐτῷ. OL: illi. 17 OL: comprehende. 4Q197 (4 i 7): ‫[“( ]א[תקף נ]ונא‬o]verpower [the] fi[sh]”). 18 GI omits. OL: et tene illum. 19 OL: et comprehendit puer. 4Q197 (4 i 7–8): ‫[“( ]וג[בר עלימא‬and] the youth [gr]abbed”). 20 GI: ἀνέβαλεν. OL: eduxit. 4Q197 (4 i 8–9): ‫“( אנפ[קה‬brou]ght”). 21 OL: in terram. 4Q197 (4 i 7–8): ‫“( ליבשא‬to dry land”). Vg: quod cum fecisset palpitare coepit in siccum ante pedes eius. 22 GI agrees verbatim with GII. OL: et dixit angelus puero.

Greek Text for Tob 6 

 9

*Ἀνάσχισον*23 τὸν ἰχθὺν *καὶ ἔξελε*24 τὴν χολὴν καὶ τὴν καρδίαν καὶ τὸ ἧπαρ αὐτοῦ καὶ *ἀπόθες αὐτὰ μετὰ σαυτοῦ*25 *καὶ τὰ ἔγκατα ἔκβαλε*26 [a]· *ἔστιν γὰρ εἰς φάρμακον χρήσιμον ἡ χολὴ καὶ ἡ καρδία καὶ τὸ ἧπαρ αὐτοῦ*27 [b]. 6 *καὶ ἀνασχίσας τὸ παιδάριον τὸν ἰχθὺν σνήγαγεν τὴν χολὴν καὶ τὴν καρδίαν καὶ τὸ ἧπαρ*28 [a] καὶ *ὤπτησεν*29 *τοῦ ἰχθύος*30 καὶ *ἔφαγεν*31 [b] *καὶ ἀφῆκεν ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἡλισμένον*32 **33 [c]. III. (6) *καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἀμφότεροι κοινῶς*34 *ἕως ἤγγισαν εἰς Μηδίαν*35 [d]. 7 *καὶ τότε ἠρώτησεν τὸ παιδάριον τὸν ἄγγελον καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ*36 *Ἀζαρία ἄδελφε*37 *τί τὸ φάρμακον ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ τῷ ἥπατι τοῦ ἰχθύος καὶ ἐν τῇ χολῇ*;38 8 καὶ 23 GI: ἀνάτεμε. OL: exintera. 4Q197 (4 i 8–9): “Sl]it it open” (DJD), ‫“ ;פר[קהי‬Schneide ihn auf” (ATTM), ‫בק[עהי‬. 24 GI: καὶ λαβὼν. OL: et tolle. 4Q197 (4 i 7): ‫“( ואנפק‬take out”). 25 GI: θὲς ἀσφαλῶς. OL: et repone et habe tecum. 4Q197 (4 i 8–9): “Keep them w]ith you” (DJD), ‫“ ;שים ב[ידך‬und behalte sie in] deinem Besitz” (ATTM), ‫וטרהון ב[ידך‬. 26 Omitted by GI. OL: et caetera interanea proiice. 4Q197 (4 i 8–9) preserves ‫[“( ומעוה]י‬its] entrails”). 27 Absent in GI. OL: sunt enim necessaria haec ad medicamenta utilia. Passible of full reconstruction in the gap of 4Q197 (4 i 9), according to both DJD and ATTM. Vg: sunt enim haec necessaria ad medicamenta utiliter. 28 GI: καὶ ἐποίησεν τὸ παιδάριον ὡς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἄγγελος. OL: et exinteravit puer piscem illum, et tulit fel, et cor, et iecor. Vg: quod cum fecisset. 29 GI: ὀπτήσαντες (plural form in a participial phrase). OL majority text (L1): assauerunt. L3: [piscem uero] assauit. Vg: assauit [carnes eius]. 30 Absent in GI. OL: et partem piscis [assauerunt]. 4Q197 (4 i 9–11): ‫“( מן נ[ונא‬from] the [f]ish”). 31 4Q197 (4 i 9–11): ‫ ;ואכל‬4Q196 (13:1): ‫ואכ[ל‬. OL: L1 and L2 omit reference to eating; L3 reads plural: manducauerunt. 32 Absent in GI. OL: caetera autem salierunt. 4Q196 (13:1): ‫שוה מל]יחה שאר[יתא‬. Vg: cetera salierunt quae sufficerent eis quousq(ue) peruenirent in Rages ciuitatem Medorum. 33 OL (L1 and L2) adds the sentence et tulerunt in uia. Such reading is supported by 4Q196 (13:1): ‫( ואף לאורחא‬4Q197 (4 i 9–11) preserves ‫ )ואף‬and the Vg: et secum tulerunt in uia. 34 GI: καὶ ὥδευον ἀμφότεροι. OL: et coeperunt iter agere. 4Q197 (4 i 11): ‫“( אזלין תריה]ו[ן ]כ[חדא‬the two of th[e]m went on their way [to]gether”). 35 GI: ἕως ἤγγισαν ἐν Ἐκβατάνοις. OL: donec peruenirent in regionem Medorum. 4Q197 (4 i 11): ‫]עד[ ק]רבו ל[הון למדי‬, (“[until] they dr[ew near] to Media”). 36 GI: καὶ εἶπεν τὸ παιδάριον τῷ ἀγγέλῳ. OL: et interrogauit puer angelum, dicens. 4Q196 13 (ab 1–3): ‫“( באדין ש[אל עלימא למל]אכא‬then ask]ed the lad [the] ang[el]”). 4Q197 (4 i 12): ‫וא[מר לה‬ (“[and] he [s]aid to him”). 37 OL: Azarias frater. 4Q197 (4 i 12): ‫“( עזריה אחי‬Azariah, my brother”). 38 Having omitted the noun φάρμακον in 6:5, GI also omits it here reading simply: τί ἐστιν τὸ ἧπαρ καὶ ἡ καρδία καὶ ἡ χολὴ τοῦ ἰχθύος. OL: quod remedium est in hoc felle et corde et iecore piscis? 4Q197 (4 i 12): ‫“( מה סם בלבב נונא ובכ]בדה ובמררתה‬what medicine is in the fish’s heart, and in [its] li[ver and in its gall]?”).

10 

 Greek text for Tob 6

εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἡ καρδία καὶ τὸ ἧπαρ τοῦ ἰχθύος, *κάπνισον ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπου ἢ γυναικός, ᾧ ἀπάντημα δαιμονίου ἢ πνεύματος πονηροῦ*39 [a], *καὶ φεύξεται ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πᾶν ἀπάντημα καὶ οὐ μὴ μείνωσιν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα*40 [b]· 9 *καὶ ἡ χολή, ἐγχρῖσαι ἀνθρώπου ὀφθαλμούς*,41 *οὗ λευκώματα ἀνέβησαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν*,42 ἐμφυσῆσαι ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν λευκωμάτων, *καὶ ὑγιαίνουσιν*43. IV. 10 *καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Μηδίαν [a] καὶ ἤδη ἤγγιζεν εἰς Ἐκβάτανα*44 [b], 11 *λέγει Ῥαφαὴλ*45 *τῷ παιδαρίῳ*46 *Τωβία ἄδελφε*.47 *καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἰδοὺ ἐγώ*48 [a]. *καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ*49 *Ἐν τοῖς ῾Ραγουήλου*50 *τὴν νύκτα ταύτην*51 *δεῖ ἡμᾶς αὐλισθῆναι*52 [b], *καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος συγγενής σού ἐστιν*53 [c], *καὶ

39 GI recasts the phrase thus: ἐάν τινα ὀχλῇ δαιμόνιον ἢ πνεῦμα πονηρόν ταῦτα δεῖ καπνίσαι ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπου ἢ γυναικός. OL: fumigatur coram uiro et muliere qui incursum daemonis aut spiritum immundum habet. 4Q197 (4 i 12–14): ‫]הן ת[אתנה קדם גבר או אנתא נגיעי שד או רוח] באישא‬ (“[If you] smoke it in the presence of a man or a woman afflicted by a demon or an [evil] spirit”). 40 GI: καὶ οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ ὀχληθῇ. OL: et fugiet ab illo omnis incursus, et non apparebit in aeternum. 4Q197 (4 i 12–14): ‫“( לא [יסחרון סחרתהו]ן[ לעלם‬thei[r] encounters will [never] occur again”). 41 OL: et fel facit ad unguendos oculos homini. 4Q197 (4 i 14–15): ‫“( ומררתא למכחל עי]ני אנש‬And the gall is for anointing the ey[es of a human being]”). 42 GI: ὃς ἔχει λευκώματα ἐν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς. OL: cui fuerint albugines. 4Q197 (4 i 14–15) preserves: ‫“( חרריא‬white films”). 43 GI: καὶ ἰαθήσεται. OL: ut ad sanitatem perueniat. 4Q197 (4 i 14–15): ‫“( ויחין‬and they will get well”). 44 GI: ὡς δὲ προσήγγισαν τῇ Ῥάγῃ. OL: et postquam intrauerunt in regionem Mediam, adpropinquauerunt ciuitati Bathanis. 4Q197 (4 i 15): [‫“( וכ]ד[י עלו לגו מדי וכבר הוא מ]דבק לאחמתא‬and wh[e]n they entered into Media and he was already ap[proaching Ecbatana]”). 45 GI: εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος. OL: Et dixit Raphahel angelus. Both DJD and ATTM reconstruct the proper name “Raphael” but not the appositive “angel” in the gap of in 4Q197 (4 i 15–16): ‫אמר רפאל לעלי[מא‬. 46 Absent in OL witnesses. 4Q197 (4 i 15–16): ‫לעלי[מא‬. 47 GI omits the proper name. OL: absent in L1 – L3 but witnessed by LaM: Tobiae frater; LaJ: Tobias frater; LaR: Tobia frater; LaG: Tobias frater. 48 Absent in GI and OL (majority text). LaM: Et ille respondit: quid est? LaG: Ille dixit: quid est? 4Q197 (4 i 15–16): ‫ט]ו[ביה אחי ואמר ] [לה הא אנה‬. 49 Absent in GI and OL. 4Q197 (4 i 16–17): ‫ואמר לה‬. 50 GI: παρὰ ῾Ραγουήλῳ. OL: Raguhel. 4Q197 (4 i 16–17): ‫( אבית] רעואל‬the form ‫ אבית‬for ‫ בבית‬is also found in 1QpHab 11:6; Mur 42:4. See, Fitzmyer, Tobit, 211). 51 GI: σήμερον. OL: hac nocte. Beyer reconstructs the phrase ‫“( בלילי דן‬this night”), in the gap of 4Q197 (4 i 16–17). Another fragment of that same manuscript transmits that temporal phrase in v.13c (see note 65 below). 52 GI: αὐλισθησόμεθα. OL: manere nos oportet. 53 GI: καὶ αὐτὸς συγγενής σού ἐστιν. OL: homo est propinquus tuus. 4Q197 (4 i 16–17): ‫וג[ברא מן‬ ‫“( בית אבונא הוא‬and the man is from the house of our ancestor”).

Greek Text for Tob 6 

 11

ἔστιν αὐτῷ θυγάτηρ*,54 ᾗ ὄνομα Σάρρα [d]· 12 *καὶ υἱὸς ἄρσην οὐδὲ θυγάτηρ ὑπάρχει αὐτῷ πλὴν Σάρρας μόνης*55 [a], *καὶ σὺ ἔγγιστα αὐτῆς εἶ παρὰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους κληρονομῆσαι αὐτήν [b], καὶ τὰ ὄντα τῷ πατρὶ αὐτῆς σοὶ δικαιοῦται κληρονομῆσαι*56 [c]· **57 *καὶ τὸ κοράσιον φρόνιμον καὶ ἀνδρεῖον καὶ καλὸν λίαν*58 [d], *καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῆς καλός*59 [e]. **60 13 καὶ εἶπεν *Δεδικαίωταί σοι λαβεῖν αὐτήν*61 [a] · *καὶ ἄκουσόν μου, ἄδελφε*62 [b], καὶ *λαλήσω*63 τῷ πατρὶ *περὶ τοῦ κορασίου*64 *τὴν νύκτα ταύτην*,65 *ἵνα λημψόμεθά σοι αὐτὴν νύμφην*66 [c] · καὶ *ὅταν ἐπιστρέψωμεν ἐκ*67 Ῥάγων, *ποιήσομεν τὸν γάμον αὐτῆς*68 [d]. *καὶ

54 GI: καὶ ἔστιν αὐτῷ θυγάτηρ μονογενὴς. OL: et habet filiam speciosam. 4Q197 (4 i 16–17): ‫“( ואיתי לה ברא שפירה‬He has a beautiful daughter”). A5 (Neubauer’s Aramaic Text): ‫וליה ברתא חדא‬ ‫שפרתא‬. GIII ends the verse thus: καὶ αὐτὴ καλὴ τῷ εἴδει (as it appears an interpretative addition imitating OT phraseology. See Gen 29:17; 2 Sam 11:2; Jdt 8:7; Susanna (TH) 1:31). 55 GI has nothing that corresponds. OL: sed neque masculum ullum neque feminam aliam praeter illam habet. 4Q197 (4 i 17–18): ‫[“( ]ואחרון לא[ איתי לה לה]ן[ שרה] ב[ל]חודי[ה‬and] he has [no one else] bu[t] Sarah a[lone]”). 56 GI: λαλήσω περὶ αὐτῆς τοῦ δοθῆναί σοι αὐτὴν εἰς γυναῖκα ὅτι σοὶ ἐπιβάλλει ἡ κληρονομία αὐτῆς καὶ σὺ μόνος εἶ ἐκ τοῦ γένους αὐτῆς. OL: Et tu proximus es illius super omnes homines ut possideas eam et haereditatem illius et omnem substantiam patris eius. 4Q197 (4 i 18–19): ‫“( ואנתה ק]רי[ב לה‬You are re[lat]ed to her”). 57 OL inserts here accipe illam uxorem. Fitzmyer reconstructs that phrase in 4Q197 4 i 19: ‫]סבה [לך‬ ‫[“( ל]אנת[א‬take ] her as [wif]e”). GIII has a different reading (καὶ σοὶ δικαίωμα λαβεῖν αὐτήν) similar to that of Vg (et oportet te eam accipere coniugem). 58 GI: καὶ τὸ κοράσιον καλὸν καὶ φρόνιμόν ἐστιν. OL: etenim puella haec sapiens, fortis et bona valde, et constabilita. 4Q197 (4 ii 1): ‫[“( היא חכימה ותקיפ[א ושפירה לחדא‬she is wise, strong], and very beautiful”). 59 Absent in GI. OL: et pater ipsius diligit illam. 4Q197 (4 ii 1): [‫“( ואבוה רחם] לה‬and her father loves [her]”). GIII: καὶ ὁ π(ατὴ)ρ αὐτῆς ἀγαπᾷ αὐτήν. 60 OL ends the verse thus: et quaecunque possedit, illi tradet. Tibi ergo destinata est hereditas patris eius. 4Q197 (4 ii 2): ‫ול[ך ]גזיר למירת ל[אבוהא‬. 61 Absent in GI. OL: et te oportet accipere illam. 4Q197 (4 ii 2): [‫“( ועליך דין קשטא גזר למ]סבה‬and a right decision is made for your to t[ake her]”). 62 GI: omits ἄδελφε. OL: et nunc audi me frater. 63 OL: loquere. 4Q197 4 ii 2–3: (DJD) ‫“( תמלל‬you shall speak”); (ATTM) ‫“( נמלל‬we shall speak”). 64 Absent in GI. OL: de illa. 4Q197 4 ii 2–3: ‫“( בעל]מ[תא דא‬about this youn[g] girl”). GIII: περὶ αὐτῆς. 65 Absent in GI. OL: hac nocte. 4Q197 4 ii 2–3: ‫“( בליליא דן‬tonight”). GIII: σήμερον. 66 Absent in GI. OL: et accipiemus tibi illam uxorem. 4Q197 4 ii 2–3: [‫תקימנה ותסבנה לה לאנת]ה‬. DJD transcribes the first verb’s initial letter as a taw (thus reads 2nd person singular, “you shall engage her”), whereas ATTM reads it an initial nun (thus reads 1st person plural), same person witnessed by GII and OL. The same verbal form as reconstructed in ATTM occurs, still witnessing to v.13, in 4Q197 (4 ii 6–7), which thus would form an inclusion also in the Aramaic text. 67 OL: et cum regressi fuerimus ex Rages. 4Q196 (14 i 1): [‫[“( ו[כדי נת]וב מן‬and] when we retu[rn from]”). 68 GI omits αὐτῆς. OL: faciemus nuptias eius. 4Q197 4 ii 4: ‫[“( נעבד לה[ משתותא‬we shall make] the marriage).

12 

 Greek text for Tob 6

ἐπίσταμαι ὅτι οὐ μὴ δυνηθῇ Ῥαγουὴλ κωλῦσαι αὐτὴν ἀπὸ σοῦ ἢ ἐγγυᾶσθαι ἑτέρῳ, ὀφειλήσειν θάνατον κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν τῆς βίβλου Μωυσέως διὰ τὸ γινώσκειν ὅτι σοὶ κληρονομία καθήκει λαβεῖν τὴν θυγατέρα αὐτοῦ παρὰ πάντα ἄνθρωπον*69 [e]. *καὶ νῦν ἄκουσόν μου, ἄδελφε [f], καὶ λαλήσομεν περὶ τοῦ κορασίου τὴν νύκτα ταύτην καὶ μνηστευσόμεθά σοι αὐτήν*70 [g]· *καὶ ὅταν ἐπιστρέψωμεν ἐκ Ῥάγων*,71 *λημψόμεθα αὐτὴν*72 *καὶ ἀπάξομεν αὐτὴν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου*73 [h]. V. 14 *τότε ἀποκριθεὶς Τωβίας εἶπεν τῷ Ῥαφαὴλ*74 [a] *Ἀζαρία ἄδελφε, ἤκουσα ὅτι*75 *ἑπτὰ ἤδη ἐδόθη ἀνδράσιν, καὶ ἀπέθανον ἐν τοῖς νυμφῶσιν αὐτῶν τὴν νύκτα, ὁπότε εἰσεπορεύοντο πρὸς αὐτήν*,76 *καὶ ἀπέθνῃσκον*77 [b]. *καὶ ἤκουσα λεγόντων αὐτῶν ὅτι δαμόνιον ἀποκτέννει αὐτούς*78 [c]. 15 *καὶ νῦν φοβοῦμαι ἐγώ [a] ― ὅτι αὐτὴν οὐκ ἀδικεῖ, ἀλλ᾽ ὃς ἂν θελήσῃ ἐγγίσαι αὐτῆς, ἀποκτέννει αὐτόν · [b] μονογενής εἰμι τῷ πατρί μου ― [c] μὴ ἀποθάνω καὶ κατάξω τὴν ζωὴν τοῦ

69 GI: διότι ἐπίσταμαι Ραγουηλ ὅτι οὐ μὴ δῷ αὐτὴν ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωυσῆ ἢ ὀφειλέσει θάνατον ὅτι τὴν κληρονομίαν σοὶ καθήκει λαβεῖν ἢ πάντα ἄνθρωπον. OL: scio autem quia Raguhel non negabit illam tibi: nouit enim quia si dederit illam uiro alio, morte periet secundum iudicium libri Moysi: et quia scit tibi maxime aptam esse haereditatem illius, magis quam alicui homini. 4Q197 (4 ii 4–6): ‫וידע אנה די לא יכול רעואל מנך בדיל די הוא ידע ] [ולמסב ברתה מן כל אנ]ש‬ ‫“( ארי הו[א יד]ע[ די הן ינתננה לגבר ]אחרן ספר[ מושה‬I know that Raguel will not be able to withhold her from you, becaus[e] he knows [that you have more right… ] and to take his daughter than anyone el[se. for h]e kno[ws] that, if he were to give her to [another] man, [ the Book of] Moses”). 70 Absent in GI. OL: nunc ergo frater, audi me, et loquamur de hac puella, et desponsemus illam tibi. 4Q197 (4 ii 6–7): [‫“( וכען] נמלל בעלי[מת]א [דא ליליא דן ונקימתא ]לך‬and now, [we shall speak about] this {you]ng girl tonight, and we shall engage her [for you]”). 71 Absent in GI. OL: et reuersi ex Rages. 4Q196 (14 i 1): [‫[“( ו[כדי נת]וב מן‬and] when we retu[rn from]”). A5: ‫וכד נתוב מן ראגיש‬. 72 Absent both in GI and OL. 73 Absent in GI. OL: ducemus eam nobiscum in domum tuam. 74 GI: τότε εἶπεν τὸ παιδάριον τῷ ἀγγέλῳ. OL: tunc respondit Thobias Raphahel angelo, et dixit. 4Q197 (4 ii 7): ‫ואמר לרפ[אל‬. 75 GI: Ἀζαρία ἄδελφε ἀκήκοα ἐγὼ. OL: Azarias frater audiui. 4Q197 (4 ii 7): ‫“( עזריה אחי שמעת‬Azariah my brother, I have heard”). 76 GI: τὸ κοράσιον δεδόσθαι ἑπτὰ ἀνδράσιν καὶ πάντας ἐν τῷ νυμφῶνι ἀπολωλότας. OL: quoniam iam tradita est uiris septem, et mortui sunt in cubiculo nocte, ea hora qua cum illa fuerunt. 4Q197 (4 ii 8): ‫[“( ומיתו כ[די עללין עליה הוו‬and they died w]hen they entered to her”). 77 Absent both in GI and OL. 78 Absent in GI. OL: audiui etiam quosdam dicentes, quoniam daemonium est quod illos occidit. A5: ‫ושמעית דאשמדאי מלכא דשידי קטיל יתהון‬. GIII: καὶ ἐγὼ ἤκουσα ὅτι πν(εῦμ)α ἀκάθαρτον ἀποκτέννει αὐτούς.

Greek Text for Tob 6 

 13

πατρός μου καὶ τῆς μητρός μου μετ᾽ ὀδύνης ἐπ᾽ ἐμοὶ εἰς τὸν τάφον αὐτῶν [d] · καὶ υἱὸς ἕτερος οὐχ ὑπάρχει αὐτοῖς, ἵνα θάψῃ αὐτούς* 79 [e]. VI. 16 *καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ [a] Οὐ μέμνησαι τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ πατρός σου, ὅτι ἐνετείλατό σοι λαβεῖν γυναῖκα ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ πατρός σου*80 [b]; *καὶ νῦν ἄκουσόν μου, ἄδελφε [c], καὶ μὴ λόγον ἔχε τοῦ δαιμονίου τούτου καὶ λαβέ*81 [d]. *καὶ γινώσκω ἐγὼ*82 *ὅτι τὴν νύκτα ταύτην δοθήσεταί σοι γυνή*83 [e]. 17 καὶ *ὅταν εἰσέλθῃς*84 εἰς τὸν νυμφῶνα [a], *λαβὲ ἐκ τοῦ ἥπατος τοῦ ἰχθύος καὶ τὴν καρδίαν καὶ ἐπίθες ἐπὶ τὴν τέφραν τῶν θυμιαμάτων*85 [b], *καὶ ἡ ὀσμὴ πορεύσεται*86 [c], 18 *καὶ

79 MS 319: καὶ νῦν φοβοῦμαι ἐγώ ἀπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου τούτου ὃτι φίλει αὐτην; GI: καὶ νῦν ἐγὼ μόνος εἰμὶ τῷ πατρὶ καὶ φοβοῦμαι μὴ εἰσελθὼν ἀποθάνω καθὼς καὶ οἱ πρότεροι ὅτι δαιμόνιον φιλεῖ αὐτήν ὃ οὐκ ἀδικεῖ οὐδένα πλὴν τῶν προσαγόντων αὐτῇ καὶ νῦν ἐγὼ φοβοῦμαι μὴ ἀποθάνω καὶ κατάξω τὴν ζωὴν τοῦ πατρός μου καὶ τῆς μητρός μου μετ᾽ ὀδύνης ἐπ᾽ ἐμοὶ εἰς τὸν τάφον αὐτῶν καὶ υἱὸς ἕτερος οὐχ ὑπάρχει αὐτοῖς ὃς θάψει αὐτούς. OL: et nunc timeo hoc daemonium, quoniam diligit illam. et ipsam quidem non uexat, sed eum qui illi adplicitus fuerit, ipsum occidit. Unicus sum patri meo; ne forte moriar, et deducam patris mei uitam et matris maeae cum dolore ad ínferos: sed neque habent alium filium, qui sepeliat illos, et possideat haereditatem illorum. 4Q197 (4 ii 9): ‫[“( כען ד[חל ענה ]מ[ן שדה די ]רחם לה‬now] I am [af]raid [o]f the demon that [loves her]”). 4Q196 (14 i 4–5): ‫“( ] [די ר]ח[ם לה‬that lo[v]es her”). 4Q196 (14 i 7–8), preserves: ‫לא איתי להון בר אחרן‬ ‫[“( [די יקבר ]אנון‬they do not have another son] who will bury [them]”) and 4Q197 (4 ii 11): ‫ובר א[חרן‬ ‫[“( לא ]איתי להן‬and] [an]other [son they do] not [have]”). 80 GI: εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ ἄγγελος οὐ μέμνησαι τῶν λόγων ὧν ἐνετείλατό σοι ὁ πατήρ σου ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαβεῖν σε γυναῖκα ἐκ τοῦ γένους σου. OL: et dixit Raphahel angelus memo resto madatorum patris tui, quoniam praecepit tibi accipere te debere uxorem de domo patris tui. 4Q196 (14 i 8): ‫הלא תדכל‬ ‫[“( לפק[ודי אבון די פקדך‬Do you not remember the com]mands of your father, that he ordered you?”) and 4Q197 (4 ii 12): ‫“( די פקדך‬that he ordered you”). 81 GI: καὶ νῦν ἄκουσόν μου ἄδελφε διότι σοὶ ἔσται εἰς γυναῖκα καὶ τοῦ δαιμονίου μηδένα λόγον ἔχε. OL: et nunc audi me frater, noli computare daemonium illud. Sed postula illam. 4Q196 14 i 9–10 preserves ‫[“( וכע[ן שמע לי אחי אל‬and no]w listen to me, my brother; do not[ ]”). 4Q197 (4 ii 13): ‫“( ש[דא דן וסבה‬that [d]emon, but take her”). 82 Absent in GI. OL: et scio. 83 GI: ὅτι τὴν νύκτα ταύτην δοθήσεταί σοι αὕτη εἰς γυναῖκα. OL: quoniam dabitur tibi hac nocte uxor. 4Q197 (4 ii 13): ‫[“( בלי[ליא דן‬on] this [n]ight”). 84 GI: ἐὰν εἰσέλθῃς. 85 GI: λήμψῃ τέφραν θυμιαμάτων καὶ ἐπιθήσεις ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας καὶ τοῦ ἥπατος τοῦ ἰχθύος. OL: tolle iecor et cor piscis illius, et pone super carbones. 4Q196 (14 i 11): ‫[“( ס[ב מן לבב ]נונא‬t]ake from the heart of [the fish]”). 86 GI: καὶ καπνίσεις. OL: et odor manabit. A5: ‫“( ואקטר מיניה תחות לבושה‬and smoke some of it under her garment”).

14 

 Greek text for Tob 6

ὀσφρανθήσεται τὸ δαιμόνιον καὶ φεύξεται*87 [a] *καὶ οὐκέτι μὴ φανῇ περὶ αὐτὴν τὸν πάντα αἰῶνα*88 [b]. *καὶ ὅταν μέλλῃς γίνεσθαι μετ᾽ αὐτῆς [c], ἐξεγέρθητε πρῶτον ἀμφότεροι*89 *καὶ προσεύξασθε καὶ δεήθητε τοῦ κυρίου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἵνα ἔλεος γένηται καὶ σωτηρία ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς*90 [d]· *καὶ μὴ φοβοῦ*91 [e], *σοὶ γάρ ἐστιν μεμερισμένη πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος*92 [f], *καὶ σὺ αὐτὴν σώσεις*93 [g], *καὶ μετὰ σοῦ πορεύσεται*94 [h], *καὶ ὑπολαμβάνω ὅτι ἔσονταί σοι ἐξ αὐτῆς παιδία*95 *καὶ ἔσονταί σοι ὡς ἀδελφοί*96 [i], *μὴ λόγον ἔχε*97 [j]. VII. (18) *καὶ ὅτε ἤκουσεν Τωβίας τῶν λόγων Ῥαφαὴλ*98 [k] *καὶ ὅτι ἔστιν αὐτῷ ἀδελφὴ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ*99 [l], *λίαν ἠγάπησεν αὐτήν [m] καὶ ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ ἐκολλήθη εἰς αὐτήν*100 [n]. ***

87 OL: et odorabitur illud daemonium et fugiet. 4Q196 (14 i 12): ‫[“( וירי[ח שדא וי]ערק‬and] the demon will [sme]ll (it) and will [flee]”). 88 GI: καὶ οὐκ ἐπανελεύσεται τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος. OL: et non apparebit circa illam omnino in perpetuum. 89 GI: ὅταν δὲ προσπορεύῃ αὐτῇ ἐγέρθητε ἀμφότεροι. OL: et cum coeperis uelle esse cum illa, surgite primo ambo. 4Q196 (4 ii 12): ‫“( ל]מהוה עמה‬to [be with her]”). 4Q197 (4 ii 16): ‫למהוה ע[מה עו]רו‬ (“[to be wi]th her, get [up]”). 90 GI: καὶ βοήσατε πρὸς τὸν ἐλεήμονα θεόν καὶ σώσει ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐλεήσει. OL: et deprecamini dominum coeli, ut detur uobis misericordia et sanitas. 91 OL: noli timere. 4Q197 (4 ii 17): ‫[“( וא[ל תדחל‬do no]t fear”). 92 GI: ὅτι σοὶ αὐτὴ ἡτοιμασμένη ἦν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος. OL: tibi enim destinata est ante saecula. 4Q197 (4 ii 17): ‫[“( די ל[ך היא הליקא‬because] she has been destined [for] you”). 93 OL: et tu illam sanabis. 4Q197 (4 ii 17): [‫[ תשזב]ה‬...] ‫“( ולך‬and for you […] you will save [her]”). 94 OL: et ibit tecum. 95 OL: et credo quoniam habebis ex illa filios. 4Q197 (4 ii 18) reads: ‫]ו[מדמה אנה די להוון לך ]מנה בנין‬ ‫“( ול[הוון‬I am sure that there will be [children from her] for you, [and] they [w]ill be…”). 96 Absent in GI. OL: et erunt tibi sicut fratres. 97 Absent in GI and OL. 98 GI: καὶ ὡς ἤκουσεν Τωβιας ταῦτα. OL: et cum audisset Thobias sermons Raphahel angeli. 4Q197 (4 ii 19): ‫“( וכדי ש[מע טוביה מלי רפא]ל‬When Tobiah heard the words of Raphae[l”). 99 Absent in GI. OL: quoniam soror est illius, et de domo seminis patris illius. 4Q197 (4 ii 19): ‫[“( די היא ל[ה אחא ומן‬that she was] his kinswoman and of”). 100 GI: ἐφίλησεν αὐτήν καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ ἐκολλήθη αὐτῇ σφόδρα. OL: haesit cordi eius. L2: direxit in ea animum suum et adesit cordi illius. 4Q197 (4 iii 1): ‫ש[גיא רחמה ולבה >דבק< בה ]לחד[א‬ (“he fell [v]ery much in love with her, and his heart to her [exceeding]ly”).

Greek Text for Tob 6 

 15

ENGLISH TRANSLATION I. 6:2 And so the lad departed and the angel with him. Also the dog left with him and went along with them. [a]· The two of them walked on {together}. [b] As a first night came upon them [c], they camped by the Tigris River [d]. II. 3 Now, the lad went down to the Tigris River to bathe his feet [a] and a big fish leaped out of the water trying to swallow the lad’s foot [b], and he cried out [c]. 4 The angel said to the lad, “Grab the fish and overpower it!” [a]. The lad overpowered the fish and dragged it to dry land. 5 The angel then said to him: “Slit the fish, extract its gall, heart and liver, and take them along with you. The bowels however throw them out [a]· Its gall, heart and liver in fact are useful medicine.” [b]. 6 Having slit the fish, the lad collected its gall, heart and liver. [a] Part of the fish he roasted and ate; part of it he spared salted {for the road}101 [c]. III. (6) The two of them continued walking together until they approached Media [d]. 7 Then, the lad questioned the angel and said to him, “Brother Azariah, what is the medicinal usefulness in the fish’s heart, liver and gall?” 8 And he said to him, “The fish’s heart and liver, if you smoke it in the presence of a man or a woman, afflicted by a demon or an evil spirit [a], the affliction will leave that person forever102 [b]. 9 As for the gall, if you smear upon a man’s eyes, in which white films were formed and blow upon them right upon the white films, they will be healed.” IV. 10 When they103 entered Media [a] and were104 getting close to Ecbatana [b], 11 Raphael spoke to the lad, “Brother Tobiah!” He answered, “Here I am!” [a] He said, “We must lodge with Raguel tonight [b]. The man is your relative [c] 101 Emended with OL and 4Q196. 102 Translated ad sensum, harmonizing with 6:18abc. 103 Reading plural with OL and 4Q197. 104 Reading plural with OL.

16 

 Greek text for Tob 6

and he has a daughter named Sarah [d]. 12 No other son or daughter there is to him except Sarah alone [a]. You are the closest to her from among all other men to have a hereditary claim regarding her [b] as well as the right to inherit her father’s estate [c]. The girl is intelligent, courageous and very beautiful [d], and her father {loves her dearly}.”105 [e]. 13 And he continued, “It is your right to marry her [a]. Now, listen to me, brother [b]. I shall speak with the father about the girl tonight so that we may take her as your bride [c]. Once we return from Rages [d], we celebrate your marriage with her [e]. I know that Raguel will certainly not be able to keep her from you or commit her to another, risking death according to the judgment of the book of Moses, for he knows that you, more than any other man, have the right to marry his daughter [f]. Now, listen to me, brother [g]. We shall speak about the girl this very night and engage her to you [h]. Once we return from Rages [i], we take her along with us back to your home” [j]. V. 14 Tobiah then replied to Raphael [a], “Brother Azariah, I heard that she was given already to seven men and they all died in the bridal chamber. The very night they tried to approach her, they drop dead [b]. I heard people saying that it was a demon who killed them all [c]. 15 Therefore, I am scared {of that demon who loves her}106 [a]. For to her he does no harm, but to whomever wishes to approach her, he kills him [b]. I am my father’s only son. [c] Lest I die and bring my father and mother’s life in grief to their grave [d]. Besides, they have no other son to bury them” [e]. VI. 16 So he said to him [a], “Do not you remember the commandments of your father, who enjoined you to marry a woman from your paternal linage? [b] Now, listen to me, brother [c]. Be not afraid of that demon but accept to marry her [d]. For I know that this very night she will be given to you as wife [e]. 17 And when you have entered the bridal chamber [a], take from the liver of the fish and his heart and cast into the embers for the incense [b] and smoke will come out [c], 18 The demon will smell it and he will flee, and will not appear again to her forever more [a]. When you are about to lay together [b], first both of you, standing, pray

105 Emended with OL and 4Q197. 106 Emended with OL and 4Q197.

Greek Text for Tob 6 

 17

and beseech the Lord of Heaven, that mercy and salvation may be upon you [c]. Be not afraid [d], for to you she was set apart before the world existed [e]. You shall save her [f] and she shall come with you [g]. Accept to marry her for to you there will be children from her and they will be like brothers to you [h]. Be not afraid!” [j] VII. (18) When Tobiah heard Raphael’s words [k], that she was to him a kinswoman from his father’s linage [l], he loved her deeply [m] and his heart clang to her [n].

1 Some General Issues Regarding Tobit The following discussion on some general issues regarding Tobit,1 has a propaedeutic function with respect to our exegesis of Tob 6. The presentation on Tobit’s complex, puzzling and unsolved(able) textual tradition serves above all to justify our chosen textual form of Tob 6 and the criteria followed for its occasional emendation. The considerations on Tobit’s approximate dates, may help us to contextualize from historical and ideological points of view, the imaginarium of Tob 6; the book’s collocation within the literary currents of Second Temple Judaism, and to grasp more accurately its dominant features. Finally, the remarks on Tobit’s literary genre and the literary form of Tob 6, steps for a sharper understanding of its narrative function in the book.

1.1 Tobit’s Textual Situation Tobit’s manuscript tradition is remarkably variegated, in language2 and form.3 Although the various witnesses coincide in the fundamental points of the story, a mere cross reading of them reveals a notable instability at textual level, even among witnesses of the same family. That instability highlights the complex, puzzling and intriguing process implied in its textual history, but also hints to the vital process implied in the diffusion of Tobit story. Apparently, copyists/editors/ translators, attracted by its charm and ideological richness, felt free to retouch it, in views of being more fitting and instructive to their addressees, according to their needs, in specific socio-historical contexts where it circulated. Notwithstanding the remarkable contributions on Tobit’s textual tradition,4 there is no

1 For a more thorough overview on the arguments here discussed, see Moore, Tobit, 3–64; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 3–57; B. Otzen, Tobit and Judith (Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 11; London 2002) 2–66; L. L. Grabbe, “Tobit”, Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (ed. J. D. G. Dunn) (Grand Rapids, MI 2003) 736–747. 2 According to Hallermayer, “kein anderes biblisches Buch ist schon vorchristlich so polyglott bezeugt.” See M. Hallermayer, Text und Überlieferung des Buches Tobit (DCLS 3; Berlin – New York, NY 2008) 187; For a review of Hallermayer’s contribution, see B. C. Gregory, “Review of M. Hallermayer, Text und Überlieferung des Buches Tobit (DCLS 3; Berlin – New York 2008)”, RBL 13 (2011) 242–244. 3 For an overview in that regard, see L. Stuckenbruck, “Tobit”, OEBB II, 430–435; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 3–17. 4 Besides Hallermayer’s study mentioned in note 1 above, also that of R. Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit (MSU 17; Göttingen 1984); N. Fernández Marcos, “Review of R. Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit”, JSJ 16.2 (1985) 267–269. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110615074-003

20 

 1 Some general issues regarding Tobit

critical text of Greek Tobit.5 Göttingen’s monumental edition in effect displays both long and short forms of the story in parallel. Before such situation, some scholars propose presently to move towards a truly critical (hypothetically (re)constructed) text6; others opt for a “synoptic approach” discussing arguments taking into considerations both forms of the story7; others still choose one form of the story or the other, with little or no text critical discussion.8 Present scholarship from different points of view, especially in light of Qumran material, agrees in the antiquity of the long form of Tobit story over the short.9 However, even if supporting substantially the long recension’s readings, Qumran fragments sometimes agree with GI against GII. Moreover, the scrolls’ material seems to witness not to a single Semitic textual form of Tobit but rather to a diversified one already at Qumran.10 Notwithstanding that, the oldest textual witnesses of Tobit story available to us are the Qumran fragments, beyond the issue of their interdependence. Tobit 6 in that respect is privileged for the significant amount of Semitic material available for the evaluation of its readings. The fragmentary nature of Qumran material however leaves us with two extant available representatives of the long form of the story to work with, meaning GII and OL. Considering the secondary translative nature of OL, we chose GII as our base text. Considering the synchronic tenor of our study, we have opted to embrace as much as possible GII readings as such, insofar as they present a coherent text according to its own style and internal narrative logic. GII does not seem to transmit always

5 Tobit’s Greek textual tradition, due to the integrity of most of its witnesses, serves as base text for the majority of the translations. 6 See in that regard S. Weeks, “Restoring the Greek Tobit”, JSJ 44 (2013) 1–15; S. Weeks, “Reconstructing Tobit 13.6–10”, The Temple in Text and Tradition. Festschrift in Honour of Robert Hayward (ed. T. McLay) (LSTS 83; London 2015) 35–47. 7 See for instance T. Nicklas, “Marriage in the Book of Tobit: A Synoptic Approach”, The Book of Tobit – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 139–154, 139–140; T. Nicklas, “Thesen zur textlichen Vielfalt im Tobitbuch”, JSJ 34/2 (2003) 141– 159. 8 See R. J. Littman, Tobit. The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus (Septuagint Commentary Series; Leiden – Boston (MA) 2008); M. Zappella, Tobit (NVBTA 30; Cinisello Balsamo, MI 2010); E. Di Pede, et al. Révéler les oeuvres de Dieu. Lecture narrative du livre de Tobie (Le livre et le rouleau 46; Namur – Paris 2014) 6–11. 9 “Although some interpreters of Tobit have preferred to regard the Greek Short Recension as the more original, the studies of J. R. Harris, D. C. Simpson, J. D. Thomas, R. Hanhart, J. R. Busto Saiz and C. A. Moore have shown that the Greek Short Recension is a redacted form of the earlier Greek Long Recension, produced in an effort to improve the Greek phraseology and literary character of the Tobit story.” See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 5. 10 See Nicklas, “Thesen”, 151–154.

1.2 Approximate Dates 

 21

the best readings regarding the long tradition. Signs of corruption are perceptible in some of its readings.11 Because of that, text critic discussions occur where textual variations appeared to have a significant impact for the sense of the text. For our textual emendations, great importance was given to the value of a reading in relation to the narrative coherence of a section, in accordance with the internal logic and style of GII.

1.2 Approximate Dates With respect to Tobit’s approximate time of composition, there is also a relative agreement in present scholarship. The book’s historical inaccuracies in dealing with the northern tribes’ exile, hints to significant distance from the events Tobit affirms to have eye-witnessed.12 Although set in the 8th-7th century BCE, Tobit “knows the rebuilding of the temple under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest (14:5) around 500 BCE.”13 That implies the author’s knowledge of the process of exile also of southern Judah and its return. Tobit’s socio- and theological views on endogamy, may indicate awareness with Ezra’s traditions in that regard.14 Tobit is familiar with the Story of Ahiqar, written between 550–450 BCE15 and with some ideas of 1 Enoch,16 whose oldest sections go back ca. IV century BCE.17 A considerable number of its ideas, however, suggests its origin not merely in post-exile,

11 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 4–5. 12 See M. D. Kiel, The “Whole Truth”. Rethinking Retribution in the Book of Tobit (LSTS 82; London – New York 2012) 12. 13 See Grabbe, “Tobit”, 736; Otzen, Tobit and Judith, 17–18. 14 See H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, TX 1985) XXXV.139. 15 R. H. Charles, ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English: with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books (Berkeley 2004) 719; R.  Contini,  – C. Grottanelli, Il saggio Ahiqar. Fortuna e trasformazioni di uno scritto sapienziale. Il testo più antico e le sue versioni (StBi(Br) 148; Brescia 2005) 15–26; H. Niehr, Aramäischer Ahiqar (JSHRZ 2/2; Gütersloh 2007). 16 Like for example the interaction of angels with humans (cf. Tob 3:17; 5:4; 6:11; 11:1, etc.; 1 Enoch 9:1; 10:4; 20:3; 22:3.6; 23:4; 32:6), the reference to the seven angels (cf. Tob 12:15; 1 Enoch 20:7), the name Raphael for the angel in disguise (1 Enoch 71:8–9.13; in the MT it occurs only once in 1 Chr 26:7). G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Tobit and Enoch: Distant Cousins with a Recognizable Resemblance”, SBLSP 27 (1988) 54–88. 17 See G. Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism. An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI 2002) 100–101.

22 

 1 Some general issues regarding Tobit

but already during Hellenistic times.18 Tobiah’s marriage story seems shaped upon Isaac’s (Gen 24) sustained by commentators to be a late Second Temple addition to Genesis.19 Tobit’s expressions, “Book of Moses” (Tob 6:13; 7:11–13) and “Law of Moses” (Tob 7:13) regarding Pentateuchal halakhic traditions (used for instance in 2 Chr 23:18; 25:4; 30:16); its consideration of Amos (Tob 2:6) and Nahum (Tob 14:4) as Scripture (=authoritative)20 and its awareness with the story of Jonah,21 “call for a late postexilic dating.”22 The book expects the conversion of the gentiles (see Tob 13:11.14; 14:4.6), even if Tobit’s last lines celebrates Assyria’s punishment with the destruction of Nineveh (14:15). Tobit’s serene atmosphere seems to signal unawareness of the Maccabean crisis (175–164 BCE), pace Zimmermann and Biberger.23 Lastly, Qumran fragments of Tobit, the oldest of which were valued paleographically to ca. 100 BCE, offered a terminus ante  quem  for the book’s composition or in any case, final redaction.24 The convergence of such elements led scholars to agree in placing Tobit’s origin sometime between late third/early second century BCE, perhaps still

18 Tobit’s accorded payment of one drachma per day to Azariah (alias Raphael) as Tobiah’s travel companion (see 5:15), corresponds to the salary of a mercenary or artisan in the Greek world between the end of 5th and 3rd century BCE. Greek drachma or its equivalent did not circulated in the Ancient Near East before that time. Tobit’s calendar is Macedonian, used by Hellenistic kings (see Tob 2:11). The amounts of Sarah’s dowry and Raphael’s voyage compensation, correspond exactly to those in vogue during 4th-3rd century BCE. Elements of Greek Law system like syngraphe as marriage contract and chirography as a caution document (known from 4th century BCE on) are also detected in the book (see 5:3; 7:13). The definition of an ideal spouse and the issue of women’s work (Tob 2:11–14), the problem of drunkenness and behavior in a banquet (see Tob 1:10–11; 4:15) plus the concern regarding the advantages and risk of the travel (see Tob 5:1–3.18–22) would be characteristics of Hellenized nobles. See M.-F. Baslez, “Le roman de Tobit. Un judaïsme entre deux mondes”, Le judaïsme à l’aube de l’ère chrétienne. XVIIIe Congrès de l’ACFEB (Lyon, septembre 1999 (ed. P. Abadie – J.-P. Lémonon) (LDiv 186; Paris 2001) 29–50, 29–30; Bickerman, Jews in the Greek Age, [57; J. Schwartz, “Remarques littéraires sur le roman de Tobit”, RHPR 67/3 (1987) 293–297, 294. 19 See A. Rofé, Introduzione alla letteratura della Bibbia Ebraica. I. Pentateuco e libri storici (Introduzione allo studio della Bibbia; Brescia 2011) 221–224. 20 See in that regard, J. J. Collins, “Before the Canon: Scriptures in Second Temple Judaism”, Old Testament Interpretation Past, Present and Future. Essays in Honor of G. M. Tucker (Edinburgh 1995) 225–241. 21 See H. W. Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah. A Commentary (Minneapolis 1986) 76–78. 22 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 51. 23 See F. Zimmermann, The Book of Tobit. An English Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Jewish Apocryphal Literature; New York 1958) 24; B. Biberger, “Unbefriedigende Gegewart und ideale Zukunft: gesamtisraelitische Heilsperspektiven in den letzten Worten Tobits (Tob 14)”, BZ 52/2 (2011) 265–280. 24 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 50.

1.3 Use of Biblical and Non-Biblical Material 

 23

during Ptolemaic dominion in Palestine (and thus before 200 BCE). As it is known, although with its initial turmoil in the last decades of IV century BCE, due mostly to the struggles against Seleucids for dominion of Palestine, the initial cruelty towards Jerusalem’s inhabitants (including deportation into Egypt of part of its population) Ptolemaic dominion of Palestine (280–205 BCE ca.) marked a period of stability and prosperity in Judea (as Qohelet 5:7–9 seems to witness).25 Such period corresponds to the Seleucid dominion in most parts of the Levant, including Mesopotamia and Anatolia, covering the ruling mostly of Antiochus II Theos (261–246 BCE) and Antiochus III The Great (223–187 BCE), who was particularly benevolent towards the Jews of his empire.26 Although Tobit’s place of composition remains a matter of debate,27 such relatively stable national and international scenario, as far as the Jews were concerned, may have favored the production of Tobit’s elaborate narrative enterprise.

1.3 Use of Biblical and Non-Biblical Material Tobit 6, in its stylized phraseology, creative motifs and peculiar ideas, appears to evoke at various levels of intertextuality above all previous “biblical” traditions.28 As anticipated in the introduction of our study, a proper understanding of the chapter therefore, requires a reflection also at intertextual level. In that regard emerges the question of Tobit’s sources. In the discussion of the Tobit’s time of composition presented in the previous section, several of its patent sources came

25 See in that regard, P. Sacchi, Storia del Secondo Tempio. Israele tra VI secolo a.C. e I secolo d.C. (Torino 2006) 135–186; L. L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Vol. 2: The Coming of the Greeks. The Early Hellenistic Period (335–175 BCE) (LSTS 68; London 2008) 288–313; Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 113–131; M. Hengel, “The Political and Social History of Palestine From Alexander to Antiochus III (333–187 B.C.E.)” The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age (ed. W. D. Davies  – L. Finkelstein) (Cambridge – New York – Melbourne 1989) 35–78; Regarding Qohelet’s origin in Ptolemaic Period, see L. Mazzinghi, “Ho cercato e ho esplorato”. Studi sul Qohelet (Bologna 2009) 67–76. 26 See in that regard, Bickerman, Jews in the Greek Age, 91–100; Grabbe, History of the Jews and Judaism, 317–318. 27 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 52–54. 28 The term “biblical” is placed between quotation marks here to stress the generic and modern sense in which it is used in the argumentation (in Tobit’s time, we clearly can not speak yet of “bible,” although as the prologue of Sirach suggests, at the time of its translation into Greek (early second century BCE), there existed in Judaism already a (fluid) corpus of “canonized” texts.) See in that regard J. J. Collins, “The Literature of the Second Temple Period”, The Oxford Handbook of the Biblical Studies (ed. M. Goodman) (2002) 53–78.

24 

 1 Some general issues regarding Tobit

to surface (helping both delimiting and authenticating them). We now focus on that specific argument (even if in overview), bearing in mind the book’s origin in Hellenistic times and evaluating main proposals also regarding its latent sources and the manner they are integrated in the text, important for our discussion on Tobit 6’s later.

1.3.1 Tobit’s Use of “Biblical” Material Right in the beginning of his “memoirs,” while referring the apostasy of the northern tribes, of his ancestor’s tribe Naphtali and his fidelity to Jerusalem worship (see Tob 1:4–8), as recognized by most commentators, Tobit alludes to various biblical traditions in that regard.29 His statement on the schism of the northern tribes, for instance (1:4b.5), reveals clear signs of dependence on portions of our present book of Kings30; that on Jerusalem’s election (1:4c), appears an allusion to the prescription stressed mainly in Deut 12:1–14 (although there, coherent with its narrative setting and rhetoric, Deuteronomy does not mention explicitly Jerusalem).31 To that, as mentioned before, we may add the author’s quotation of Am 8:10 in 2:6 and its evocation in 14:4 of Nahum’s authority to support his assurance of the efficacy of God’s word.32 The book also recalls explicitly the names of Noah (MS 319, L1 and also GI), Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (thus evoking patriarchal traditions, see 4:12); mentions even Adam and Eve quoting our present Gen 2:18 in 8:6. In recent years, commentators have explored Tobit’s connections also with the Exodus traditions.33 Tobit’s discussion with his wife Hannah (2:11–14) reminds 29 See in that regard, for instance A. A. Di Lella, “The Deuteronomic background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob 14:3–11”, CBQ 41/3 (1979) 380–389; A. A. Di Lella, “The Book of Tobit and the Book of Judges: An Intertextual Analysis”, Henoch 22 (2000) 197–206; V. T. M. Skemp, “Avenues of Intertextuality Between Tobit and the New Testament”, Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (ed. J. Corley – V. T. M. Skemp) (Washington, D.C. 2005) 43–70; A. A. Di Lella, “A Study of Tobit 14:10 and Its Intertextual Parallels”, CBQ 71/3 (2009) 497–506; A. A. Di Lella, “Tobit 4,9 and Romans 9,18: An Intertextual Study”, Bib 90/2 (2009) 260–263. 30 See 1 Kgs 11:26–12:33 (with no parallel in Chronicles). Compare for example, Tobit’s sole reference to “Dan” in recounting the apostasy of his tribe in 1:5 with 1 Kgs 12:30. According to Bickerman, “the author’ s primary historical source was the Book of Kings.” Bickerman, Jews in the Greek Age, 54. 31 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 105; Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 63; Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 55; Virgulin, Tobia, 36. 32 See Nah 1:1; 2:8–10.13; 3:18–19. 33 Alonso Schökel was perhaps the first among Tobit commentators of the past century to propose points of contact between Tob 6 and Exodus motifs. See Alonso Schökel, – Iglesias

1.3 Use of Biblical and Non-Biblical Material 

 25

Job’s argument with hers (Job 2:9–10)34 and echoes of the Psalms are also detectable in Tobit’s phraseology.35 Such features, together with the book’s teachings in form of maxims (see 4:3–21; 12:6–11; 14:8–11), reveal Tobit’s author’s acquaintance with Israel’s Wisdom traditions. In brief, containing samples of each of the threefold sections of our present OT (Law, Prophecy and Writings), Tobit, as Doré suggested, emerges as a sort of “une bible en miniature.”36

González, Tobías, 68; See also M. Zappella, “L’immagine dell’elezione come strumento dell’esaltazione apologetica di Israele secondo quattro testi ebraici in lingua greca (Tobia, Ben Sira, Giuditta, Ester)”, RStB 17/1 (2005) 167–201; M. D. Kiel, “Tobit and Moses Redux”, JSP 17/2 (2008) 83–98; F. M. Macatangay, “Election by Allusion: Exodus Themes in the Book of Tobit”, CBQ 76/3 (2014) 450– 463; R. Egger-Wenzel, “Die Individualisierung des Exodusgeschehens im Buch Tobit”, Exodus. Rezeptionen in deuterokanonischer und frühjüdischer Literatur (Hrsg. J. Gärtner – B. Schmitz) (Berlin – Boston 2016) 131–144. 34 See A. E. Portier-Young, “‘Eyes to the Blind’: A Dialogue Between Tobit and Job”, Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (ed. J. Corley – V. T. M. Skemp) (Washington, D.C. 2005) 14–27; G. Toloni, La sofferenza del giusto: Giobbe e Tobia a confronto (Studi Biblici Paideia 159; Brescia 2009). 35 See S. D. Ryan, “The Psalms and the Book of Tobit”, Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (ed. J. Corley – V. T. M. Skemp) (Washington, D.C. 2005) 28–42; T. Nicklas, “”Denn der Herr kennt den Weg der Gerechten...” (Ps 1,6a): Lesespaziergänge vom Buch Tobit in den Psalter”, SJOT 19.1 (2005) 61–73. 36 See D. Doré, Le Livre de Tobit ou Le secret du roi (Cahiers Évangile 101; Paris 1997) 68; On Tobit’s use of biblical traditions, see Priero, Tobia, 32–35; Macatangay, Wisdom Instructions, 29–34; On the more general topic of the use of Scriptures in Second Temple literature, see M. Hengel, “The Scriptures and Their Interpretation in Second Temple Judaism”, The Aramaic Bible. Targums in their Historical Context (ed. D.R.G. Beattie – M.J. McNamara) (JSOT.SS 66; Sheffield 1994) 158–175; J. Strazicich, Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel. Appropriation and Resignification in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity (Biblical Interpretation Series 82; Leiden 2012) 21–26; Dimant, in her study on the “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” has proposed Tobit’s use of Scripture in the same manner “contemporary” writings, like Jubilees or Genesis Apocryphon use. Tobit would fall under the category of “free narrative” (main story line does not rework a previous biblical one but is created mainly of non-biblical material), use Scripture mostly in a “compositional” manner (biblical elements interwoven in the new work without external formal markers) but also by means of “implicit quotations” (understood as “a phrase of at least three words, which stems from a specific recognizable biblical context”). Such use of Scripture, more than for re-interpretation of biblical material in new contexts, pursues imitation of biblical styles and forms. See D. Dimant, “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha”, Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M. Mulder – H. Sysling) (CRINT 2; Assen 1988) 379–419, 382–387.401.406. Tob 6 as it will be shown seems to confirm most of those proposals.

26 

 1 Some general issues regarding Tobit

1.3.2 Tobit’s Use of “Non-Biblical” Material With respect to non-biblical material, besides Tobit’s explicit references to the story of Ahiqar,37 commentators have detected latent in it, elements derived from folktales, contemporaneous Greek literature and (presently) non-biblical Jewish texts.38 1.3.2.1 Folktale Motifs In relation to popular stories or folktales,39 it has been suggested for instance, the motif of God sending Raphael to heal Tobit in relation to the tales of the “Grateful Dead,” which tells about a man who finds a corpse and buries it and is later gratified by the spirit of the dead for his charitable action. Sarah’s plight was related to the tales of “The Bride of the Monster” and the “Tractate of Khons.” In the former, the hero and his helper make a journey to slay the monster afflicting the princess; in the latter, an emissary of the god of Thebes exorcises the

37 See Tob 1:21–22; 2:10; 11:18; 14:10; S. Niditch, – R. Doran, “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier”, JBL 96/2 (1977) 179–183; J. C. Greenfield, “Ahiqar in the Book of Tobit”, De la Tôrah au Messie. Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles (ed. M. Carrez J. Doré – P. Grelot) (Paris 1981) 329–336; G. Toloni, “Tobi e Ahiqar”, Il saggio Ahiqar. Fortuna e trasformazioni di uno scritto sapienziale. Il testo più antico e le sue versioni. (Studi Biblici 148; Brescia 2005) 141–166; I. Kottsieper, “‘Look, Son, What Nadab Did to Ahikaros...’: The Aramaic Ahiqar Tradition and Its Relationship to the Book of Tobit”, The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumram. (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe 35; Tübingen 2009) 145– 167; H. Niehr, “Die Gestalt des Ahiqar Im Tobit-Buch”, (Deuteocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook; Berlin 2009) 57–76; G. Toloni, “Ahiqar tra leggenda e rielaborazione letteraria: una tradizione e i suoi riflessi”, Sefarad 73/1 (2013) 7–30. 38 See C. A. Moore, “Tobit, Book of”, Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York – London – Toronto – Sidney – Auckland 1992) VI, 585–594, 588–589; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Search for Tobit’s Mixed Ancestry. A Historical and Hermeneutical Odyssey”, RevQ 17 (1996) 339–349; M. Hengel, “The Interpenetration of Judaism and Hellenism in the Pre-Maccabean Period”, The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age (ed. W. D. Davies – L. Finkelstein) (Cambridge – New York – Melbourne 1989) 167–228, See also. 39 See Otzen, Tobit and Judith, 8–20; Moore, Tobit, 11–14; R. H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times. With an Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York 1949) 269–271; Zimmermann, Book of Tobit, 5–12; W. M. Soll, “Misfortune and Exile in Tobit : The Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source and Deuteronomic heology”, CBQ 51/2 (1989) 209–231; W. M. Soll, “Tobit and Folklore Studies, With Emphasis on Propp’s Morphology”, SBLSP 27 (1988) 39–53; For an evaluation of such proposals see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 34–41; Grabbe, “Tobit”, 737–738; See also M. A. Friedman, “Tamar, a Symbol of Life: The “Killer Wife Superstition in the Bible and Jewish Tradition”, AJS Review 15/1 (1990) 23–61.

1.3 Use of Biblical and Non-Biblical Material 

 27

demon-possessed princes of Bekhten.40 Yet, other sources may explain the presence of those very same elements.41 In addition to that, the underlying literary motifs of those folktales are found in the most varied cultures and contexts,42 weakening in our view too precise links with Tobit. 1.3.2.2 Greek Influence Intuition of commentators from old, beginning with some early Christian writers, links between Tobit and certain literary and ideological elements from its surrounding Greek socio-cultural milieu have been also proposed.43 Tobit’s insistence on the proper burial of the dead or its positive mention of a dog have been related

40 See Moore, Tobit, 11–14. 41 See T. F. Glason, “The Main Source of Tobit”, ZAW 71 (1959) 275–277; G. Bickell, “A Source of the Book of Tobit”, The Athenaeum 3291 (1890) 700; W. F. Kirby, “A Source of the Book of Tobit”, The Athenaeum 3292 (1890) 738–39; F. Hindes Groome, “Tobit and Jack the Giant-Killer”, Folklore 9/3 (1898) 226–244; J. H. Moulton, “The Iranian Background of Tobit”, The Expository Times 11/6 (1900) 257–260; J. H. Moulton, “The Magian Material of Tobit”, Early Zoroastrianism 99 (1912) 332–40. 42 See in that regard for instance G. H. Gerould, The Greatful Dead: The History of a Folk Story (Publications of the Fok-Lore Society 60; London 1907). 43 See in that regard, M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period (Philadelphia 1974); M. Hengel, Jews, Greeks and Barbarians. Aspects of the Hellenization of Judaism in the Pre-Christian Period (London 1980); J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (The Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids (MI) 1983); Bickerman, Jews in the Greek Age, 3–51; V. A. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia 1999) 269–344; J. M. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora. From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Edinburgh 1996) 19–47.103– 124.320–335; Sacchi, Storia del Secondo Tempio, 178–186; Grabbe, History of the Jews and Judaism, 125–163; L. H. Feldman, Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (JSJS 107; Leiden 2006); A. I. Baumgarten, “Hellenism and Judaism Before and After World War II. Two Case Studies – A. D. Momigliano and E. J. Bickerman”, “Follow the wise”. Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of Lee I. Levine (ed. Z. Weiss – O. Irshai – J. Magness – S. Schwartz) (Winona Lake, Ind. 2010) 3–24, 3–24; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1998); E. S. Gruen, The Construct of Identity. Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History (DCLS 29; Berlin – New York (NY) 2016); Although a bit outdated, but still worth reading in that regard, Pfeiffer, History of the New Testament Times, 93–224; To what degree and in which manner such influence is felt in Tobit is still matter of debate, as it is with respect to the development of Judaism during STP. Besides Himmelfarb (2005) mentioned in note 83 further below, see in that regard L. H. Feldman, “Hebraism and Hellenism Reconsidered”, Judaism 43/2 (1994) 115–126, 487–503; A. I. Baumgarten, “Were the Greeks Different? If so, How and Why?”, Shem in the Tents of Japhet. Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism (ed. J. L. Kugel) (JSJS 74; Leiden 2002) 1–10.

28 

 1 Some general issues regarding Tobit

to both Greek tragedy and epic literature.44 Considering Tobit’s accepted time of composition, such links are plausible. However, how and for what purpose would then such a Jewish-centered writing like Tobit be interested in adopting “pagan” motifs and ideas? Also the proposed links of Tobit with Greek literature, as discussed in our exegesis of Tob 6, may have other rationale considering the book’s dominant Jewish matrix. In any case, Greek influences do occur in Tobit, perhaps in broader terms. M-F. Baslez for instance has insisted in Tobit’s shares one of the preferred literary forms of Hellenistic Judaism: Greek “romance.”45 A historical ambient, adventure (expressed in the theme of travel to distant lands) and specially the theme of “apprenticeship,” would be the three main components of that genre that Tobit includes. According to Baslez, Greek romance primarily envisages an educational model.46 In that sense, Tobit could be seen as a “initiatory romance.”47 The ingredients of ancient romance in Tobit would allow us to apprehend a certain level of culture, Greek education and travel as social reality and literary theme,

44 Besides Glason (1959) mentioned in note 41, See for instance J. Bolyki, “Burial as an Ethical Task in the Book of Tobit, in the Bible and in the Greek Tragedies”, The Book of Tobit  – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 89–101; A. E. Portier-Young, “Alleviation of Suffering in the Book of Tobit : Comedy, Community, and Happy Endings”, CBQ 63/1 (2001) 35–54; C. Fries, “Das Buch Tobit und die Telemachie”, ZWT 53 (1911) 54–87; G.  Toloni, “Echi Omerici nel Libro di Tobia?”, Sefarad 67/1 (2007) 5–36; D. R. MacDonald, “Tobit and the Odyssey”, Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (ed. D. R. MacDonald) (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Harrisburg, PA 2001) 11–40; G. Bellia, “From Tobit to Ben Sira. From Nostalgia to the Recovery of Fatherhood”, Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ed. A. Passaro) (DLCY 2012/2013; 2012) 1–39, 7. 45 In that regard she is categoric: “Le livre de Tobit est incontestablement un roman” (“The book of Tobit is undoubtedly a romance”). See Baslez, “Le roman de Tobit”, 30; She considers Tobit “une forme romanesque achevée” (superior to other biblical romances like Esther, Judith, Ruth and Jonah). Comparing some of its elements with those of the non-biblical story of Joseph and Aseneth, she concludes that Tobit would constitute a development of Greek romance in its marked oriental feature. See Baslez, “Le roman de Tobit”, 32–33; That feature in Tobit could be explained otherwise too. See in that regard A. Berlin, “The Book of Esther and Ancient Storytelling”, JBL 120/1 (2001) 3–14. 46 See Baslez, “Le roman de Tobit”, 31. 47 See in that regard, R. Turqan, “Le roman ”initiatique”: A propos de un livre récent”, RHR 163 (1963) 149–199; To consider the consolidation of that literary genre during Roman times, see the interesting article of S. Couraud-Lalanne, “Récit d’un τελος ἐρωτικον: réflexions sur le statut des jeunes dans le roman de Chariton d’Aphrodisias”, REG 111/2 (1998) 518–550.

1.3 Use of Biblical and Non-Biblical Material 

 29

together the other elements referred in Tobit,48 may reflect the high social status of its author(s),49 revealing an homogeneous social milieu, erudite but not intellectual, particularly religious.50 Furthermore, Baslez also detected elements of Greek aretalogy (narrative of a miraculous deed) in the book. In such literature, heroes experience hardships; their prayers provoke special divine intervention in their favor (“miracle”), which they celebrate with praises, hymns and writings, composed by divine command.51 The manner Tobit would integrate both literary forms in its narrative project requires further study. In addition to the Greek elements just mentioned, Baslez also highlighted Tobit’s oriental features. Framed in the oldest and less known oriental Jewish Diaspora (Tob 1:2–3), “Greek influx and oriental traditions coalesce in the book of Tobit.”52 Its mention of the famous legendary sage Ahiqar (Tob 1:21–22; 2:10; 11:18; 14:10) and even some of “his” maxims (see Tob 4:10.15.17.19), donate the

48 Although denouncing a certain hostility of diaspora power and social environment towards exiles (Tob 1), Tobit reports positively his work for the foreign king (see 1:12–14). Tobit mentions continuous almsgiving activity both in Israel and in exile (1:3–8.16); the amount of money left in deposit by Gabael (ten talents of silver; a talent=26–36kg ca. See 1:14) is enormous and he speaks of fine food at his table (2:1–2). Also Raguel appears to be of good status. He offers a fourteen days marriage feast at Tobiah’s marriage (8:19–2); “donates” half of his patrimony as marriage gift to Tobiah (8:21) who inherits the other half of it after his father-in-law’s death (14:13). 49 In her study on “Jewish travel in antiquity” besides underscoring the idea that “travel was also a recurrent theme of non-Jewish Hellenistic novels,” C. Hezser sustained that, “the travellers of these narrative are usually well-to-do members of the upper strata of society, official travellers who embark on journeys for particular communal purposes, or men engaged in military expeditions.” (...) “Like the pagan Hellenistic novels the extent Jewish Hellenistic novels seem to have been written by upper-class writers for an upper-class audience reflecting upper-class experiences and life styles.” See C. Hezser, Jewish Travel in Antiquity (TSAJ 144; Tübingen 2011) 199.394. 50 See Baslez, “Le roman de Tobit”, 36–38.40. 51 With respect to the aretalogies, Bellia offers an interesting remark: “They are compositions which praise the miraculous healings worked by the gods of the place, particularly those who were affected by blindness. (...) These aretalogies, spread by missionaries of the Oriental cults and by itinerant Cynic philosophers, must have created no little unease among the Jews of the Diaspora. In the face of the propagandist reports of numerous miracles of healing worked by the pagan divinities, those who were more exposed to this kind of thing could have undergone the temptation to abandon the God of the fathers who, above, everything, seemed conspicuous by the absence.” See Bellia, “From Tobit to Ben Sira”, 19; See also M. Zappella, “Tobit l’aretalogo. Il Libro di Tobit secondo l’onciale Sinaitico come esempio di propaganda religiosa”, “Ricercare la Sapienza di tutti gli antichi” (Sir 39.1). Miscellanea in onore di Gian Luigi Prato (a cura di M. Milani – M. Zappella) (RivB Suppl. 56; Bologna 2013) 151–158. 52 “Influences grecques et traditions orientales confluent dans le livre de Tobit.” See Baslez, “Le roman de Tobit”, 35.

30 

 1 Some general issues regarding Tobit

book a particular tonality of a “sapiential romance,” proper of the East (Aramaic culture).53 In that feature, Tobit draws near to other biblical stories like those of Esther, Judith and Daniel. Although composed in a time before them, Tobit would share especially with Judith and Daniel a certain cultural resistance. However, in comparison to them, Tobit seems to admit some Hellenistic attainments. To keep that balance, Tobit would propose an ethic in three points: “eclipse” of the courtesan behind the believer, identity reaffirmation of Diaspora Jewry, strict endogamy.54 G. Bellia for his part, called the attention to some points of contact between Tobit and Xenophon’s Cyropaedia.55 Written around 370 BCE, the Cyropaedia is a fictional work and as its very name manifests, treats basically with the education of the Persian king Cyrus the Great. Intermingling biographical data with the Median and Persian paideia, Xenophon upraises through his work Cyrus’ education and its values, mostly for the importance of the family as the main responsible for educating the youth.56 With respect to the paternal role in Cyrus’ education, Xenophon recounts a travel episode in which Cyrus’ father Cambyses, accompanies his son to Media, after which Cyrus is ready to assume the task for which he was educated.57 What is particularly interesting regarding such episode is precisely the conjunction of the themes of paternal authority, travel and education in a story, coincidentally, also to Media. Furthermore, the idea that the end of the travel is a symbol of the conclusion of Cyrus’ education is also inspiring. Comparing Cyrus’ educational journey with Tobiah’s, Bellia insightfully remarked that,“The journey of Cyrus and that of Tobias are imaginary journeys and serve as narrative pretexts to delineate, in an almost identical way, the theme of the deli53 See in that regard M. Delcor, “Jewish Literature in Hebrew and Aramaic in the Greek Era”, The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age (ed. W. D. Davies – L. Finkelstein) (Cambridge – New York – Melbourne 1989) 352–384. 54 See Baslez, “Le roman de Tobit”, 42–43; See also S. Beyerle, “‘If you preserve your faith...’  – Hellenistic Attitudes Towards Religion in Pre-Maccabean Times”, ZAW 118/2 (2006) 250–263; H. Schüngel-Straumann, “Das Buch Tobit. Ein Lehrstück zu Ehe und Familie in der Diaspora”, Kompendium Feministische Bibelauslegung (Hrsg. M.-T. Wacker  – L. Schottroff) (Gütersloh 1998) 401–409. 55 See Bellia, “From Tobit to Ben Sira”, 23–28. 56 “He extols the merits of a family education where the father, with patient skill, know how to model the character of the boy, orienting him towards a communitarian and social awareness, quite distant from the mean-minded individualistic and autoreferential register of the decadent Greek education.” See Bellia, “From Tobit to Ben Sira”, 23; See in that regard also P. Pouchelle, “Kyropaideia versus Paideia Kyriou: The Semantic Transformation of Paideia and Cognates in the Translated Books of the Septuagint”, Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Ed. K.M.Hogan – M. Goff – E. Wasserman) (EJL 41; Atlanta, GA 2017) 101–134. 57 See Cyropaedia 1,6,1–46; Bellia, “From Tobit to Ben Sira”, 23.

1.3 Use of Biblical and Non-Biblical Material 

 31

cate passage of the young man towards the autonomy of adulthood, accompanied and led by the parent.”58 Beyond the complex issue of Tobit’s acquaintance or less with Xenophon’s work, Bellia’s insight reinforces the idea of Tobit’s openness to his surrounding cultural milieu, in this case, through his share in elements, that perhaps, were already known literary topoi at his time. 1.3.2.3 Non-Bibilical Jewish Material Although in its final form,59 Tobit emerges, like other writings of Second Temple period, the work of an author that seems to have “dipped his pen in many inkpots,”60 the aforementioned exposition “denounces” a certain conflation of Tobit’s sources. Tobit’s author, in fact, “betrays at once that he is standing in the Jewish tradition.”61 The book is essentially “Jewish;” its author’s main “source” appears clearly to have been the religious traditions of his people Israel. Dancy seems right stating that Tobit’s author seems to think and “feel” naturally in biblical terms.62 In that regard, proposers of contemporary Jewish (presently) non-biblical literature as potential sources for Tobit (like Enoch or Jubilees or Genesis Apocryphon) have perhaps a stronger claim.63 Notwithstanding their major difference in appearance,64 Nickelsburg for instance, has detected some resemblances between the Tobit and parts of 1 Enoch.65 Tobit appears to share 58 See Bellia, “From Tobit to Ben Sira”, 26f. 59 On the integrity of the book of Tobit see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 42–45; Macatangay, Wisdom Instructions, 7–43. 60 See Nickelsburg, “The Search for Tobit’s Mixed Ancestry”, 340. 61 See Otzen, Tobit and Judith, 17. 62 See J. C Dancy, The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha. Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Additions to Daniel and Prayer of Manasseh (CBCNEB; Cambridge 1972) 6–7. 63 See Moore, Tobit, 193–195; Nickelsburg has recognized several details in Tobit story resembling those of Jacob’s Cycle from Jubilees version. However, accepting the evidence of Tobit’s redaction much earlier than Jubilees Nickelsburg proposed the hypothesis of a common ancestor for both works. See G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Tobit, Genesis and the Odyssey: A Complex Web of Intertextuality”, Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (ed. D. R. MacDonald) (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Harrisburg, PA 2001) 41–55; On the dates of Jubilees, see G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Jubilees”, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. M. E. Stone) (CRINT 2/2; Assen 1984) 101–104; See also in that regard D. A. Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon. A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17 (STDJ 79; Leiden 2009) 10–17. 64 See Nickelsburg, “Tobit and Enoch”, 55. 65 The most evident of which is the presence of angel Raphael, not mentioned in Hebrew Scriptures but found in 1 Enoch. See 1 Enoch 9–10 (compare for instance 1 En. 10:4; Tob 8:3); 20; 40:9–10. See also in that regard G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch. A Commentary on the Book of 1

32 

 1 Some general issues regarding Tobit

Enoch’s views on (1) cosmology, angelology and demonology; (2) eschatology; (3) ethical teaching; and (4) liturgical vocabulary.66 Those evident points of contact however do not necessarily suggest interdependence at level of source. In that regard, Nickelsburg rightly concludes that “both works might share an older stock of ideas, traditions and terminology, not simply to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, which has developed in different directions in the respective texts.”67 Nickelsburg also stressed Tobit’s sapiential feature as a whole; a “wisdom tale,” a “sapiential story,” Tobit appears “governed by a pervasive interest in human behavior.”68 By the end of his study, Nickelsburg is even more emphatic stating that Tobit “is by consensus, a sapiential text.”69 In a conjoined contribution D. Machiela and A. Perrin highlighted Tobit’s points of contact with the so called Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20; 1QapGen) unknown to modern scholars until its discovery in 1947.70 In their view, “a comparative reading of Tobit and the 1QapGen reveals unmistakable similarities in the sorts of text they are and in the ways they operate at almost every level.”71 Both Tobit and Genesis Apocryphon “may be described in modern terms as learned, entertaining historical fictions that contain a strong moral message, foster national and religious identity, and serve as recontextualized readings of Israel’s Scriptures.”72 Both works bear marks of sharing not only on common narrative techniques (fictional elaboration of early Jewish traditions, through various literary styles, motifs, type-scenes and specific idioms)73 but also on specific thematic emphasis (wisdom motif of the “two ways,” marriage, endogamy and prominent presence and role of women).74 Although more obvious in 1QapGen, it is remarkable in both work the influence of the patriarchal traditions of Genesis regarding both

Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia 33; Minneapolis, MN) 57–63. 66 See Nickelsburg, “Tobit and Enoch”, 55–68. 67 See Nickelsburg, “Tobit and Enoch”, 54–55; Nickelsburg, “The Search for Tobit’s Mixed Ancestry”, 343–345; For an evaluation of Nickelsburg’s position see, J. J. Collins, “The Judaism of the Book of Tobit”, The Book of Tobit – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 23–40, 37–39; On the approach of Tobit and Enoch, see also Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 126–127. 68 See Nickelsburg, “Tobit and Enoch”, 62–65. 69 See Nickelsburg, “Tobit and Enoch”, 67. 70 See D. A. Machiela, – A. B. Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon: Toward a Family Portrait”, JBL 133/1 (2014) 111–132, 114. 71 See Machiela, – Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon”, 115. 72 See Machiela, – Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon”, 116. 73 See Machiela, – Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon”, 116–117.127–131. 74 See Machiela, – Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon”, 118–119.121–126.

1.4 Collocation Within Second Temple Judaism 

 33

form and content.75 “Both are edifying, popular narratives punctuated with lively episodes and dialogues that were at turns tragic, ironic, suspenseful, bracing, and humorous, which would have undoubtedly entertained listeners or readers while providing moral instruction through (at least partially) fictional paradigmatic figures.”76

1.4 Collocation Within Second Temple Judaism During Second Temple period (from now on STP), a series of political happenings involving states surrounding Judea, marked also significantly its internal political, economic and socio-religious situation.77 Succeeding foreign powers (Persian, Ptolemaic, Seleucid and finally Roman), were involved in affairs of various types with its priestly rulers, from the mysterious end of the Davidic monarchy to the Hasmoneans. Such complex inner and outer political situation seems to have collaborated to some extent for the developments of Second Temple (religious) ideas.78 The large Israelite Diaspora spread among the various leading countries, the development of synagogue worship and the process of “canonization” of Hebrew Scriptures during that period, were also important factors to that process. Noteworthy, most of our present OT books had their origin and/or final redaction during STP. A reflex of such atmosphere therefore may be found in the ideas of the vast literature produced in those variant circumstances. Furthermore, the ideological developments that come about during STP generates no insignificant reactions to the dominant thought (apparently “Priestly”)79 creating currents of counter-thought. Emblematic in that regard seems to be the the “Enochic” and “Sapiential” Judaism.80 Some writings sprang from them (like Qohelet or Jonah with respect to the Sapiential current) ended up through the complex process that we call “canonization of Scripture” becoming part of our

75 See Machiela, – Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon”, 119–121. 76 See Machiela, – Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon”, 117. 77 See G. Galvin, “Second Temple Period”, NIDB V, 147; A. Reinhartz, “Second Temple Jewish Life”, NIDB V, 148–150; L. L. Grabbe, “Israel from the Rise of Hellenism to 70 C.E.”, The Oxford Handbook of the Biblical Studies (ed. J. W. Rogerson  – J. M. Lieu) (Oxford  – New York 2006) 285–316. 78 See in that regard J. C. VanderKam, “Mapping Second Temple Judaism”, The Early Enoch Literature (ed. G. Boccaccini – J. J. Collins) (JSJSup 121; Leiden – Boston (MA) 2007) 1–20. 79 “Priestly” here used as a literary tag, grouping a characteristic type of STP literature. 80 See in that regard, Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 43–103; See also Sacchi, Storia del Secondo Tempio, 89–135.

34 

 1 Some general issues regarding Tobit

present Jewish and Christian sacred writings. Others, however, remained until recent years relatively forgotten in the vast space of “non-canonicity.” The discovery of Qumran “library”81 in the last century, gave new impulse for the reevaluation of those marginalized writs, of inestimable value for the comprehension of the development of ancient Jewish and Christian thought. That “library” also included the book of Tobit.82 In a section entitled “Aramaic Literature” in the post-mortem published study “Jews in the Greek Age,” E. Bickerman amply expands on the book of Tobit.83 While endorsing Aramaic as Tobit’s original language,84 Bickerman (perhaps for the first time explicitly in recent scholarship) proposed Tobit’s insertion within the specific literary corpus of STP, meaning Aramaic literature. Tobit author’s language choice, the still productive lingua franca during Hellenistic times, would allow his story to be enjoyed in all corners of the ancient Near East, being accessible not only to his intended audience (Diaspora Jews immersed in Greek culture), potentially even to a greater public.85 Bickerman also sustained that,

81 For a presentation of the Qumran “library”, see F. Mebarki, – C. Grenache, “The Qumran Library”, Near Eastern Archaeology 63/3 (2000) 144–149; See also D. Dimant, “The Library of Qumran in Recent Scholarship”, The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a Library (ed. S. White Crawford – C. Wassen) (STDJ 116; Leiden – Boston, MA 2016) 7–14; S. Pfann, “The Ancient “Library” or “Libraries” of Qumran: The Specter of Cave 1Q”, The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a Library (ed. S. White Crawford – C. Wassen) (STDJ 116; Leiden – Boston (MA) 2016) 168–216. 82 See in that regard, A. Lange, “Pre-Maccabean Literature from Qumran and the Hebrew Bible”, DSD 13/3 (2006) 277–305. 83 See Bickerman, Jews in the Greek Age, 51–68; For an appreciation of Bickerman’s contribu- tion on the background of the twenty century Jewish historiography, see M. Himmelfarb, “Elias Bickerman on Judaism and Hellenism”, The Jewish Past Revisited : Reflections on Modern Jew- ish Historians. (Studies in Jewish Culture and Society; New Haven – London 1998) 199–211; M. Himmelfarb, “The Torah Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Difference in Antiquity”, Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context (ed. C. Bakhos) (JSJS 95; Leiden 2005) 113–129, sustains that Bickerman’s thought on the dynamics of the encounter of Jewish culture and Greek thought, is better reflected in E. Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees. Foundations of Post-Biblical Judaism (New York 1968). Unfortunately in that writing, Bickerman does not treat Tobit. 84 “The Book of Tobit is a specimen of this new outlook (NA: meaning Jewish books written in Aramaic).” See Bickerman, Jews in the Greek Age, 52; Aramaic in fact is the most accepted original language for Tobit among scholars today. For an overview in that regard, see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 18–28; For a more detailed study on the argument see Toloni (2004). 85 “The peculiarity of the Aramaic language was the nonexistence of an Aramaean state or nation, although cities and peoples speaking Aramaic did exist. Writing in this language, an author, like the writer of Greek, addressed himself from the outset to an international audience.” The author’s choice for Aramaic as the language of his romance, would allow him to reach his

1.4 Collocation Within Second Temple Judaism 

 35

“although prayers and moral admonitions are not lacking in the book, the main intention of the author is artistic rather than didactic. He delights in painting characters, allowing dialogue again and again to arrest the development of the action in order to engross his audience.”86 His suggestion of Tobit’s artistic value is enlightening. However, as L. Grabbe noted, “The entertainment value of the story needs no defense, but it goes beyond that; it is a tale with a moral, indeed a tale with a theological message.”87 The vast majority of commentators, in fact, have emphasized Tobit’s instructive or didactic feature.88 From its first chapters, Tobit abounds in moralizing teachings (recall Tob 1–3), having even entire sections of explicit instructions (like Tob 4, 12 and 14). In all those sections, emphasis falls on the familial teachings and not observance of the Torah as such, typical feature of Wisdom literature. Revisiting Bickerman’s suggestion of Tobit’s points of contact with STP Aramaic literature in a recent study,89 A. Perrin emphasized four specific points of contact between Tobit and that literary corpus: preference for first person voices; ancestral instructions on religious values; insistence on endogamous marriage; and eschatological outlooks regarding Jerusalem. Insisting that those points of contact are not incidental but indicates Tobit’s awareness of “key currents of thought that run throughout the broader Aramaic tradition,” Perrin concludes that the book “fits within the literary and theological world of Second Temple period penned in Aramaic.”90 Although recognizing that some of the alluded shared features may not necessarily be distinctive to Aramaic literature of the period, “it is fellow conational to the far and more diverse corners of the Mid-Oriental (Syria-Mesopotamia) and Southern Diaspora (Egypt). “We may postulate that about 300 BCE every Jew who could read was more or less proficient in Aramaic.” See Bickerman, Jews in the Greek Age, 51–52; J. Barr, “Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age”, The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age (ed. W. D. Davies – L. Finkelstein) (Cambridge – New York – Melbourne 1989) chap. 3, 79–114. 86 See Bickerman, Jews in the Greek Age, 55. 87 See Grabbe, “Tobit”, 737. 88 See Virgulin, Tobia, 11; Moore, Tobit, 22; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 46–49; See also Ego, Buch Tobit, 884; Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 36–39. 89 See A. B. Perrin, “Tobit’s Context and Contacts in the Qumran Aramaic Anthology”, JSP 25/1 (2015) 23–51, 26–27; See also in that regard the seminal study of B. Z. Wacholder, “The Ancient Judaeo-Aramaic Literature (500–164 BCE). A Classification of Pre-Qumranic Texts”, Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin (ed. L. H. Schiffman) (JSP.SS 8; Sheffield 1990) 257–281; I. Fröhlich, “Tobit against the Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, The Book of Tobit – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 55–70. 90 See Perrin, “Context and Contacts”, 51.

36 

 1 Some general issues regarding Tobit

the strong concentration, early attestation, and repeated representation of such literary-theological emphasis in Aramaic literature, that is significant.” In light of that, “Tobit may be viewed as an important representative of the Aramaic heritage of Ancient Judaism.”91 Perrin then continues insisting on the significance of such literary frame for a proper understanding of Tobit’s message, that would “come in sharper relief when contrasted and compared with its closest counterparts in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls.”92 Among the various texts analyzed in their potential relation to Tobit,93 Perrin mentions the so called “Aramaic Levi Document” (from now on abbreviated ALD) also found among Qumran fragments of cave four (interestingly, where Tobit’s were found),94 regarding which we highlight some elements.95 ALD deals fundamentally with Jacob’s son Levi, his life and activity, exegetically expanding on the biblical accounts concerning him and his brothers (Gen 34–37). Its author’s purpose appears to be portraying Levi as a model priest and scribe. Most of its material, however fragmentary, does not appear to be inspired only by biblical stories, with many details actually at odds with Pentateuchal ritual traditions.96 A priestly background of ALD’s author is detectable through his perfect knowledge of Levitical ritual.97 However, it is noteworthy the marked sapiential feature of his presentation of that knowledge. His qualities as a scribe becomes apparent through his metrological knowledge and the ideal of metro-arithmetical education he seems trying to transmit his Levitical students.98 ALD recounts Levi’s priestly elevation in first person discourse,99 his priestly education and his addresses to his children concerning their educational role and eminent social position.100 Levi also recounts his heavenly elevation proclaimed by seven angels, the story of his marriage and birth of his sons and grandsons.101 In a sort of “flashback” the patriarch recounts main events of his life up to his

91 See Perrin, “Context and Contacts”, 27. 92 See Perrin, “Context and Contacts”, 23. 93 1QapGen, Testament of Qahat, 4QVisAmram, 4QEnoc, 4QWordsMich, 4QPrNab. 94 4Q213a-b; 4Q214a-b with minor portions also witnessed by 1Q21. 95 We complement Perrin’s annotation in the following based on the study of H. Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran. A New Interpretation of the Levi Document (JSJS 86; Leiden 2004). 96 See Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom, 14–54. 97 See ALD 19–30. 98 See ALD 31–47; Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom, 62–63. 99 Interestingly, Jubilees also contains a story of Levi’s priestly elevation similar to that of ALD. See Jub. 30–32. 100 See ALD 82–98. 101 See ALD 6–7; 62; 63–77, respectively.

1.4 Collocation Within Second Temple Judaism 

 37

death.102 The theme of tithing is also found in the work.103 The Document’s last preserved part contains Levi’s speech to his children in which he announces their future glory and apostasy in the form of an eschatological discourse.104 As in the case of Tobit and Enoch discussed by Nickelsburg, although fundamentally diverse, Tobit and ALD share a remarkable number of features that turn them also “distant cousins with a recognizable resemblance.” Regarding Tobit and ALD, we underscore two in particular (both emphasizing the key role of the family): transmission of values through ancestors105 and emphasis on endogamy as a patriarchal teaching.106 In the ALD the account of Levi’s marriage with Melcha enacts the fulfillment of his grandfather Isaac’s teaching. In Tobit, Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah, enacts Tobit’s teaching on endogamy.107 In light of the above mentioned considerations, we may evaluate another contribution regarding Tobit’s insertion within STP literary currents. G. Boccaccini proposed Tobit as an “unexpected supporter of Zadokite Judaism,” in its efforts of approaching the two opposed currents of second Temple thought: Priestly and Sapiential.108 In his view, the book would share the “Zadokite” (and anti-Samaritan) view of Jerusalem’s choice as the national center 102 See ALD 18–81. 103 See ALD 9–10. 104 See ALD 95–104; Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom, 1–4. 105 In the ALD even on priestly matters. Compare ALD 11–61; 82–98; Tob 1:8. On the theme of transmission of ancestral traditions, see also B. Nongbri, “The Motivations of the Maccabees and Judean Rhetoric of Ancestral Tradition”, Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context (ed. C. Bakhos) (JSJSup 95; Leiden 2005) 85–111, 89–96; Away from the Land and its Temple, the preponderance of the family as a milieu from the transmission of education and values in the Diaspora, seems to be a logical development. See G. Fassbeck, “Tobit’s Religious Universe Between Kinship Loyalty and the Law of Moses”, JSJ 36/2 (2005) 173–196, 191–196; “It would be the family piety of the upper levels of Second Temple society, faithful to the sapiential tradition of the Torah, together with the personal piety of the prophetic-apocalyptic tendency of the lower classes that was to overcome the setback of the disastrous experience of the failed restoration,” sustained Bellia. See Bellia, “From Tobit to Ben Sira”, 14. 106 See ALD 16–17; 78; Tob 1:9; 4:12–13; 6:16. See Perrin, “Context and Contacts”, 35–42. 107 Compare ALD 62; Tob 4:12; 6:16. 108 See Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 124–131; For a review of Boccaccini’s main arguments see Grabbe, History of the Jews and Judaism, 238–244; See also C. J. Borders, “Review of G. Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism. An Intellectual History from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids (MI) 2001)”, RBL 7 (2003); Borders (p. 4) advices some caution towards Boccaccini’s intent to reach sociological reality from literary data. Following K. Berger, Borders maintains “one may not necessarily have direct access to a form of Judaism as a social phenomenon through a text. Texts themselves are not history but are interpretations of social environments.” See K. Berger, Exegese des Neuen Testaments. Neue Wege vom Text zur Auslegung (Uni-Taschenbücher 658; Heidelberg 1984) 234.

38 

 1 Some general issues regarding Tobit

of worship (Tob 1:4); the world’s fundamental goodness and that everything, everywhere is under God’s control, who takes care of his people; the Chronicler’s view of the destruction of Jerusalem as an experience of total annihilation for the land of Israel (14:4); agree that future restoration was in the hands of returned exiles (13:9–17; 14:5–7). In the meantime, Diaspora living would imply loyalty to the Gentile king and follow purity and boundary laws, as regarding food (1:10–17) and marriage (endogamy, 1:9; 4:12) in order to keep Jewish identity.109 Moreover, “feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, providing the dead a decent burial, preserving dutiful and loving relationships between parents and children, husbands and wives, relatives and neighbors – these are the primary concerns that Sapiential Judaism fostered and that Tobit repeats as the foundations of Jewish morality.”110 Boccaccini sees the background of that compromise in the historical rapprochement between the priestly class of Jerusalem and the powerful family of the Tobiads. The name Tobit and even more so that of Tobiah, as first proposed by Milik,111 recalls that of the famous opponent of Nehemiah, Tobiah the Ammonite (see Neh 2:10.19; 4:3.7; 6; 13; 2 Macc 3:11). According to Josephus,112 a later descendant of that potent family also named Tobiah, married the sister of the high priest Onias II. One of their sons, Joseph Tobiad, appears to have played an important role as tax collector in Judah in late Ptolemaic times.113 The close relationship between that rich family and Ptolemaic power is well attested in the Zenon Papyri.114 The Zenon Papyri preserves some letters of a “Tobiah,” descendant from that family, exchanged with Ptolemaic administration, who emerges as a real “purveyor” of king Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Such letters reveal not only the remarkable proximity of the wealthy and influent Judean family of the Tobiads to the ruling power of Egypt but also their considerable level of Hellenization. As Grabbe stated, “The Zenon papyri indicate that the Tobiads were at home in

109 See Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 126. 110 See Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 129. 111 According to Milik, the book of Tobit was designed to “enhance the prestige of the family.” See J. T. Milik, “La patrie de Tobie”, RB 73 (1966) 522–30, 522–530; Boccaccini sees in that rapprochement a sort of “historical vengeance” of the Tobiads, who through Tobit would be able to overturn the verdict of the tradition of Ezra of their unable-to-prove Israelite genealogy. See Ezra 2:59–60; Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 125. 112 See Ant. 12:160–240; JW 1:31–32. 113 See Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 86–87.124–127; Grabbe, History of the Jews and Judaism, 293–296; V. Tcherikover, – A. Fuks, eds. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. Volume 1: The Ptolemaic Period (Cambridge, Mass 1957) I, 115–118. 114 See in that regard, Grabbe, History of the Jews and Judaism, 291–293; Tcherikover, – Fuks, CPJ, I, 118–130.

1.4 Collocation Within Second Temple Judaism 

 39

the Greek world, with perhaps even a Greek education already by the mid-third century.”115 To Boccaccini’s idea of Tobit’s support of “Zadokite Judaism,” some observations are due. It is peculiar not to say perplexing that in Tobit’s initial “Jerusalem section” (Tob 1:4–8) the narrator deemphasizes the sacrificial worship, so markedly priestly a theme, with his emphasis on tithing. Although the term “sacrifice” appears in that segment (1:4–5.7), its attention is predominantly on the many tithes exiled Tobit would bring year after year to Jerusalem in fulfillment of the Law (1:6–8). Tobit’s potpourri of allusions to Torah prescriptions regarding tithes, whose precise identification commentators have not been successful in determining,116 seems finally a “Lawful” justification of its insistence on almsgiving.117 “Almsgiving” in the sense Tobit understands it, seems interpreted as a specific manner to live Torah prescriptions in exile with a “cultic colorfulness.”118 Considered with ironic eyes (one of Tobit’s preferred resources), Tobit’s insistence on tithes, without cancelling the positive sense of the Torah the book also enjoins, could be also interpreted as a critique to their

115 See Grabbe, History of the Jews and Judaism, 297; Papyri’s Letters 4 and 5 both from the same date (May 12th, 257 BCE), are particularly interesting in that regard:“Toubias to Apollonios greeting. If you and all your affairs are flourishing, and everything else is as you wish it, many thanks to the gods! {emphasis is ours} I too have been well, and have thought of you at all times, as was right (…).” Having Philadelphus special interest in rare animals, in the next letter (5) Toubias. refers a list of those he was sending as gifts to the king: “Toubias to Apollonios greeting. On the tenth of Xandikos I sent Aineias our servant, bringing the gifts for the king which you wrote and asked me to send in the month of Xandikos: two horses, six dogs, one wild mule out of an ass, two white Arab donkeys, two wild mules’ foals, one wild ass’s foal. They are all tame. I have also sent you the letter which I have written to the king about the gifts, together with a copy for your information. Goodbye.” See Tcherikover, – Fuks, CPJ , 125–129. 116 See for instance in that regard D. Dimant, “The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah”, The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumram (ed. D. Dimant  – R. G. Kratz) (FAT 35/2; Tübingen 2009) 121–143. 117 See Tob 1:16; 2:14; 4:7–11.16; 12:8–10; 14:9. On the Tobit’s theme of almsgiving see R. Heiligen- thal, “Werke der Barmherzigkeit oder Almosen? Zur Bedeutung von eleemosyne”, NT 25/4 (1983) 289–301; S.  Virgulin, “Le opere di carità nel libro di Tobia”, PSV 11 (1985) 46–56; M. Weigel, “Die Rettende Macht der Barmherzigkeit: Achikar im Buch Tobit”, BZ 50/2 (2006) 212–243; F. M. Macatangay, “Acts of Charity as Acts of Remembrance in the Book of Tobit”, JSP 23/1 (2013) 69–84; V. H. Matthews, “The Unwanted Gift: Implications of Obligatory Gift Giving in Ancient Israel”, Semeia 87 (1999) 91–104; G. Stansell, “The Gift in Ancient Israel”, Semeia 87 (1999) 65–90; M. Zehetbauer, “Barmherzigkeit als Lehnübersetzung. Die Etymologie des Begriffes im Hebraïschen, Griechischen, Lateinischen und Deutschen – eine kleine Theologiegeschichte”, BN 90 (1997) 67–83. 118 Ideas also proposed by Macatangay. See F. M. Macatangay, “The Wisdom Discourse of Tobit as Instruction in Torah”, BN 167 (2015) 99–111, 100.102.105.

40 

 1 Some general issues regarding Tobit

emphasis by the priestly class of Jerusalem. Moreover, it is rather peculiar that Tobit’s first mention of the “Law of Moses” is immediately associated with the instructions of his (great)grandmother Deborah (1:8).119 Fulfillment of the Law in Tobit is certainly seen as expression and path to righteousness. However, as Boccaccini rightly noticed, Tobit’s idea of familial transmission of its values puts both sources “at the same level as foundations of Jewish piety.”120 Tobit in our view continues to emerge in any case more markedly “sapiential” than “priestly.” J. J. Collins in his contribution on “the Judaism of the book of Tobit” also emphasized Tobit’s sapiential feature. Collins begins his study recognizing Tobit’s surprising internal literary diversity, including elements of folklore, “numerous echoes of biblical narrative” as well as of non-narrative (later) sapiential writings such as Ben Sira and Pseudo-Phocylides.121 For Collins, “Tobit is a coherent and well-plotted story” although containing elements surprisingly diverse.122 From the many voices that resound in Tobit, however,123 Tobit’s insistence on endogamy, stressing more its primary social significance (maintenance of close kinship ties and familiar property within the clan) than the biblical (Deuteronomic) idea of danger of idolatry (see Deut 7:1–3); its generic allusion to the “Law of Moses” (1:8) or the “Book of Moses” (6:13; 7:11–12) with reference to traditional custom; its little interest in cultic but rather great in family matters, highlights its strong immersion in the Wisdom tradition. Moreover, according to Collins, the ubiquity of so many of Tobit’s ideas potentially limits their circumscription to specific trends of thought, if they ever existed as such. Tobit should be seen as a product of a living current of traditions and developments within Second Temple Judaism. The book would be a sample of popular Judaism.124 In a later contribution, Collins

119 For the problems of transmission regarding that verse, Fitzmyer, Tobit, 111–112. That idea of Tobit seems to allude to the teaching in that regard stressed in Deuteronomy. See Deut 4:9–10; 6:20–25; 11:19; 31:10–13. 120 See Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 128. 121 See Collins, “Judaism”, 23–24; For the dates regarding Ben Sira, see L. Mazzinghi, Pentateuco sapienziale: Proverbi, Giobbe, Qohelet, Siracide, Sapienza. Caratteristiche letterarie e temi teologici (Testi e commenti; Bologna 2012) 175–177; B. G. Wright III, “Wisdom of Ben Sira”, Outside the Bible. Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (ed. L. H. Feldman – J. Kugel – L. H. Schiffman) (Philadelphia 2013) III 2208–2352; Regarding Pseudo-Phocylides, see P. W. Van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides, Sentences”, Outside the Bible. Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (ed. L. H. Feldman – J. Kugel – L. H. Schiffman) (Philadelphia 2013) III 2353–2361. 122 See Collins, “Judaism”, 23–24; See also in that regard Fitzmyer, Tobit, 42–45; Macatangay, Wisdom Instructions, 7–43. 123 See Collins, “Judaism”, 27–38. 124 See Collins, “Judaism”, 39–40.

1.5 Tobit’s Literary Genre 

 41

showed that halakic interest is a common feature in the Aramaic literature found at Qumran. Although not lacking familiarity with the Torah, those writings typically develop its narrative themes or treat it as source of wisdom rather than prescriptive law.125

1.5 Tobit’s Literary Genre For its many features, “The literary genre of the book of Tobit is not easy to ascertain as might first be thought.”126 Commentators in fact have categorized the work in various manners: “didactic story,” “instructive novel,” “pious romance,” “Jewish novel,” with proposals varying slightly in the combination of those terms.127 Given Tobit’s (fictional) historical setting, the adjective “historical” could seem appropriate to be included somehow in those combinations. However, considering that the book’s main concern is with Diaspora living, more than the problem of the exile as such or its historical setting and causes, the adjective “historical” appears secondary. “Story” appears the most generic term, serving basically to link Tobit’s literary expedient to that of the majority of Biblical and non-biblical writings of the time. Depending on how one defines “novel” and “romance,” one or the other could be suitable to describe Tobit’s literary genre. Fundamentally, Tobit is a “Jewish” story or a “Hebrew short story.”128 Ego, following other authors from German scholarship, labels Tobit as a “weisheitliche Lehrerzählung” (a “sapiential didactic story”).129 Tobit’s “sapiential” feature, repeatedly emerged throughout the discussion in the previous section, appears constitutive and therefore should be kept. However, the adjectives “didactic” and “sapiential” are to some extent mutually inclusive. An encompassing definition of Tobit’s literary genre could perhaps be that proposed by Deselaers: “romanhafte Lehrerzählung”

125 See J. J. Collins, “The Transformation of the Torah in Second Temple Judaism”, JSJ 43 (2012) 455–474, 56. 126 See Grabbe, “Tobit”, 736. 127 See Moore, Tobit, 17–21; L. M. Wills, Ancient Jewish Novels. An Anthology (Oxford  – New York 2002) 3–23; See also in that regard L. M. Wills, “Jewish Novellas in a Greek and Roman Age: Fiction and Identity”, JSJ 42/2 (2011) 141–165, 141–165; Otzen, together with Drewermann are maybe the main or sole proponents of Tobit as a “Jewish legend.” See Otzen, Tobit and Judith, 16–20; E. Drewermann, Der gefahrvolle Weg der Erlösung. Die Tobit-Legende tiefenpsychologisch gedeutet (Spektrum 4165; Freiburg i. B. 1993) 5. 128 See Nowell, Narrative Technique and Theology, 48–51. 129 See Ego, Buch Tobit, 884; Rabenau, Studien, 107–112.

42 

 1 Some general issues regarding Tobit

(“romance-like didactic story”).130 Deselaers’ definition in our view has above all the merit of encompassing in a synthetic manner the main concepts suggested by commentators on regard. Preserving the idea of “romance,” it links Tobit to other works of its Hellenistic context (independently of whether or not the author was intentionally imitating specifically Greek romance). Such definition also emphasizes both the work’s “entertaining” feature and “instructive” purpose. Tobit in fact seems to have been written to edify (meaning to instruct by delighting).131

Summary The complex, puzzling and unsolved textual history of Tobit demands specific textual choices. According to the present state of scholarship, the oldest witnesses of Tobit available to us are Qumran’s, which in general terms tend to support the long form of the story. Their fragmentary condition and at same time the secondary translative nature of the Old Latin tradition, which also transmits the long form of the story translated from a Greek text form, motivated us to choose GII as our base text for its dense affinity with that form of the story. According to the rules of text criticism and evaluating the various readings also from a narrative point of view, we occasionally emend our base Greek text of Tob 6. Tobit’s origin in Hellenistic times, perhaps still during Tolemaic dominion of Palestine, offers us secure borders to evaluate various interpretive proposals of the imaginarium and ideas of Tob 6. Although the main purpose of the present work is to understand better the narrative function of Tob 6 with respect to the book as a whole and particularly Tobiah as character, in its feature of “rite of passage” for him; certain intriguing elements of the chapter are also considered from a historical critical point of view. For that purpose, a plausible temporal reference for the book seemed indispensable. The book of Tobit as a whole and its chapter 6 in particular, appear to have been “knitted” with a singular amount of sources. Biblical and non-biblical material of various types have been detected in potency in it. The peculiar manner the narrator construes meaning appears to serve, among other things, activating links with those sources at various levels of intertextuality. The ideas presented before on the nature and provenance of those sources and their use in the

130 See Deselaers, Das Buch Tobit, 278; O. Kaiser, Die alttestamentlichen Apokryphen. Eine Einleitung in Grundzügen (Gütersloh 2000) 32–33. 131 See Nowell, Narrative Technique and Theology, 48.

Summary 

 43

story, on the background of the problem of their patent conflation, may help us to evaluate their presence and use in Tob 6. Finally, the travel story of Tob 6 is part of the carefully crafted and rich narrative project that is the book of Tobit. The considerations on the book’s literary genre prepares the characterization in the next chapter, of the literary form of Tob 6 with its inner features, through which the narrator recounts Tobiah’s travel with the angel.

2 Literary and Narrative Remarks on Tob 6 In this chapter we offer a literary and narrative overview of Tob 6. In it the reader finds a rationale of the textual delimitation and inner structure proposed for Tob 6 in our base Greek text.1 There follows a literary characterization of the chapter, which shapes it with a particular literary form. In several of its literary features, Tob 6 distinguishes itself considerably from other chapters of the book. In light of that, its place in Tobit, which is discussed next, begins to appear strategic. Finally, a preliminary narrative analysis of the chapter is presented, through the various narrative coordinates from which it is considered in the exegesis.2 The cumulation of those elements shape the account with a peculiar literary outlook and begins to hint at an intentional purposefulness for it. The following considerations may not only help the reader to better appreciate the richness of Tob 6 and the sense of the present research, but also prepare its detailed study in the next chapter.

2.1 Literary Remarks 2.1.1 Text Delimitation The present study focuses on the “travel account” of Tob 6, the time Tobiah passed “on the road”, within the world of the narration, alongside with God-sent-angel Raphael before getting to Ecbatana, and their interaction during that time. Due to that interaction, Tobiah’s travel destination changes, becoming Ecbatana instead of Rages. His father’s commission of retrieving family money is then surprisingly fulfilled by his travel companion (the angel in disguise; see Tob 9) and interestingly, by Tobiah’s commission. That very fact underlines the important changes such travel with the angel brought about in Tobiah. That account fundamentally takes place in our present chapter 6. For the sake of precision, there is still another account in which Tobiah once more interacts alone with Raphael on the road. At his return to Nineveh, by the angel’s invitation, Tobiah moves ahead of the cortege that included his wife Sarah, servants, herd and trousseau (see 10:10–11; 11:1–4), and exchanges few words with his travel companion regarding his father Tobit’s healing (cf. 11:4–7). Narratively significant in several respects,

1 Pages 8–14. 2 Meaning narrator, reader, character, plot, time, space and narrative rhetoric. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110615074-004

46 

 2 Literary and narrative remarks on Tob 6

that brief episode however involves Hannah and Tobit in its telling (forming a segment skillfully construed through a double scenario narration (dialogue interaction on the road – parents’ reactions at home) (Cf. 11:1–10). The making of the closure3 of the “travel narrative” (according to our delimitation, Tob 6:2–18), as a whole and its scenes, is not straightforward. Most of the Tobit story finally, regards Tobiah’s travel to Media in its broad span (Tob 4–11). Noteworthy, from Tob 6 onwards particularly, to the end of the book, the story unfolds with young Tobiah as its axis, the central figure of practically nine chapters out of the fourteen that form the book. Tobit continues to be a major character; he is also a protagonist in chapters 12–14 (the sole subject of chapter 13). However, even from a mere statistic point of view, we see that Tobiah dominates the stage. The proper name “Tobit” occurs in GII 28x, whereas the name “Tobiah” 40x, concentrated mostly in the second part of the story (i.e. from the beginning of the travel process on), 33x, whereas “Tobit,” 16x. Table 2.1 below illustrates those statistics: Table 2.1: Onomastica in Tobit (GII).

Name

Chapter 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Total

Tobit

2x

–

3x

1x

8x

–

2x

–

2x

3x

5x

2x

–

2x

28x

Tobiah

2x

3x

2x

2x

6x

3x

4x

3x

2x

5x

7x

1x

–

2x

40x

Hannah

1x

2x

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1x

2x

–

–

–

6x

Ahiqar

3x

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1x

–

–

3x

7x

Raphel

–

–

1x

–

1x

1x

1x

2x

2x

–

2x

1x

–

–

13x

Azariah

–

–

–

–

1x

1x

2x

–

1x

–

–

–

–

–

6x

Raguel

–

–

3x

–

–

–

8x

2x

2x

4x

1x

–

–

2x

24x

Edna

–

–

–

–

–

–

4x

1x

–

1x

–

–

–

–

6x

Sarah

–

–

3x

–

–

2x

4x

–

–

5x

2x

2x

–

–

18x

Gabael

1x

–

–

2x

1x

–

–

–

2x

1x

–

–

–

–

7x

Asmodeus

–

–

2x

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

2x

God

2x

–

3x

2x

3x

–

1x

3x

1x

–

5x

10x

4x

18x

52x

Lord

–

–

6x

4x

1x

1x

3x

1x

1x

4x

–

3x

4x

1x

29x

3 See Marguerat, – Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 31–32; Ska, Our Fathers Have Told Us, 1–3.

2.1 Literary Remarks 

 47

Tobit actually introduces the general argument of traveling very early in the story. We may recall in that regard, in the first lines of the autobiographical section, Tobit’s repeated ascensions to Jerusalem to fulfill the various tithes prescribed by the Law (see 1:6–8). Tobit also mentions his frequent trips to Media undertaken on charge of king Shalmaneser, to take care of his expenses, in the context of which he left a great sum of money in custody by Gabael (1:13–14). Noteworthy, the travel-motif, from its very first mention appears mingled with that of money or material goods in general. Tob 5 then has its axis around the preparation of Tobiah’s travel, mostly concentrated on his finding of a travel companion, the narrative occasion for Raphael’s debut as character.4 The travel-motif thus coordinates the plot orchestration for Tobiah’s commission (Tob 4:1–2.20) and his encounter with God’s angel in disguise and his eventual becoming Tobiah’s hired travel companion. Tob 7–10, occupies itself with Tobiah’s sojourn at Ecbatana, marriage with Sarah and fourteen days’ wedding celebration (see 10:7). Tob 11, finally, recounts his return to Nineveh (see 10:13–11:4). In Tob  14, Tobit enjoins his son to move to Media where there is σωτηρία (see 14:4). The book ends recounting Tobiah’s fulfillment of his father’s enjoinment, traveling with his family to Ecbatana, the place where he ends his days (14:12–14). Before that narrative situation, most of the book of Tobit, as Van den Eynde noted, “Takes the form of a travel account”.5 From a structural point of view, therefore, Tobit 4 and 12 frame Tobiah’s travel in its broadest span, functioning as sort of narrative introduction and conclusion to it.6 Furthermore, Tob 6 occurs between two home accounts (in Nineveh (see 5:18–6:1) and Ecbatana (see 7:1–8) neatly interconnected through various motifs.7 4 Raphael had already been mentioned by the narrator in 3:16–17. In Tob 5 he enters the stage as a “character” (individual figure assuming a role in the plot). See Marguerat, – Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 60. 5 See S. M. L. Van den Eynde, “One Journey and One Journey Makes Three: The Impact of the Readers’ Knowledge in the Book of Tobit”, ZAW 117/2 (2005) 273–280, 275. In that regard, she states further that, “The beginning and end of the story takes place in Nineveh, whereas the major part deals with the journey of Tobias to Ecbatana and back.” Her second statement though, is not exact, since the story actually ends in Ecbatana of Media and not in Nineveh (see 14:4.10.12). 6 In Fitzmyer’s commentary, the section entitled “Tobiah’s Journey” covers 4:1 up to 12:22. See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 162–300. That literary situation seems to implicate a priori that chapters 4–5 hold a special link to the “travel account” (both at rhetorical and narrative levels), as we have opportunity to highlight in the course of our exegesis. 7 Our considerations here are particularly inspired by S. Van den Eynde, “Tobit”, De Bijbel Literair (ed. J. Fokkelman – W. Weren) (Zoetermer – Kapellen 2003) 447–456, 447–452; With respect to Tobit’s inner structure, consider also Engel, “Auf zuverlässigen Wegen”, 86–92; The same proposal is reproduced in H. Engel, “Das Buch Tobit”, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Hrsg. E. Zenger) (KSTh 1; Stuttgart 1998) 246–265, 246–265; His proposal however, seems

48 

 2 Literary and narrative remarks on Tob 6

Both scenes portray a home dialogue between two main characters (Tobit and Hannah; Raguel and Edna, respectively)8 regarding Tobiah, one in the context of a home farewell, the other of a welcome. Both scenes are characterized by deep emotion (see 5:18; 7:6–8). Those paralleled home-scenes, thus, set the area that separate Nineveh in Assyria from Ecbatana in Media, or more precisely, the road that connects those places, as the stage of the account of Tob 6 (Tobiah’s travel with the angel). In Göttingen’s edition of GII, as well as in Thackeray’s,9 it is clearly Tob 6:2 that narratively marks beginning of the “travel story,” where the narrator reports Tobiah’s factual departure from Nineveh and his being on the road with Azariah-Raphael. Tob 6:1 “and she stopped weeping,” clearly belongs to the previous scene (5:18–6:1) constituting in fact its conclusion.10 Furthermore, the account of Tobiah’s travel ends with the narrator’s final remark of the positive result of the angel’s discourse to Tobiah (in our text 6:18k-n). The change of place and character that takes place right from the beginning of 7:1, underscores narratively such delimitation.11 Tobiah’s travel with the angel, therefore, understood as the peculiar and lengthy account of Tobit’s son’s interaction alone with God-sent angel Raphael, gets thus delimited as Tob 6:2–18.

2.1.2 Literary Structure of Tob 6:2–18 A mere quick reading of Tob 6 in translation, reveals three main sections in it: the catching of the fish (6:3–6) and two dialogues between Tobiah and Azariah

to have influenced mostly some later German commentators of Tobit. See Ego, Buch Tobit, 886–887; Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 37–38; Also accepts that structure, Otzen, Tobit and Judith, 55. 8 See in that regard, Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 120.217. 9 Bibliographical reference given in note 9 p. 6. 10 In that account Tobit consoles his afflicted wife Hannah reassuring the travel’s success (ironically by referring the presence of an angel of God). Most commentators recognize 6:1 as part of that section. See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 184; Moore, Tobit, 180; Zimmermann, Book of Tobit, 78–79; Virgulin, Tobia, 87; Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 21; Ego and Schüngel-Straumann, for their part, although also recognizing that structure, split Tb 6:2 in two parts, making the travel account begin in v.1b (Straumann), v.2b (Ego), in the phrase, “Und die beiden reisten” (“And both of them travelled”). See Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 114; Ego, Buch Tobit, 960. 11 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 200; Moore, Tobit, 195; Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 123; Ego extends the travel account to 7:9a. See Ego, Buch Tobit, 960.

2.1 Literary Remarks 

 49

regarding the fish’s organs and marriage with Sarah successively (vv.  6d-9; 10–18). To that structure we may add verses 2 and 18k-n as the episode’s introduction and conclusion. Tobit 6 therefore presents itself with a fivefold recognizable inner-structure: one incident and two dialogues between the protagonists, forming three micro-narratives, introduced and concluded by narrative statements. The episode’s conclusion does not pose particular problems. After allowing Raphael during a lengthy narrative time to argue with Tobiah regarding his marriage with Sarah (vv. 10–18j), the narrator refers to the success of the angelic enterprise (vv.18k-n). Its narrative introduction however demands a more careful examination, considering mostly its paratactic feature and is discussed in detail in the next chapter of this study. 2.1.2.1 Inner-Structure More in Depth The chapter’s main threefold division is brought about by the narrator through two literary devices:“geographic markers” (phrases with some sort of geographical reference) and thematic focalization. Operating conjointly, both resources “stitch” tightly the three micro-narratives into a unity. In Tob 6 we find three geographic markers: the first refers the Tigris river (v.2d); the second Media (v.6d); the third, Ecbatana (v.10). The first geographical annotation (the mention of the Tigris river) sets the stage for the first scene, Tobiah’s encounter with the big fish (vv.3–6c). As expected, such scene has the “fish” as its dominating motif, emphasized by the repetition of the term ἰχθύς six times (v.3 [1x]; v.4 [2x]; v.5 [1x] and v.6 [2x]) functioning as a Leitwort.12 That micro-narrative is characterized by action, with a remarkable number of verbs of movement having Tobiah as subject. The second geographical reference is found in vv.6d-7a. That v.6d belongs to the next sequence is confirmed grammatically by the initial τότε of v.7a, which is senseless without a previous reference of time or place (in this case of place in v.6d). A similar pattern is used by the narrator also in the third reference. Conveyed through linked phrases, the locative reference of vv.6d-7a combines a narrative statement with preposition (καί…ἕως; v.6d), and an adverbial phrase (καὶ τότε; v.7a). Although vaguer in its formulation, that reference has both a delimiting and narrative function (“suspense”). In its delimiting function, that second geographical annotation marks the end of the fish incident, by introducing a change of place from the Tigris banks to the road again, thus setting the stage for the following segment, Tobiah’s dialogue with Azariah about the fish’s organs (vv.7–9). Through the preposition 12 See Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 121.

50 

 2 Literary and narrative remarks on Tob 6

ἕως, which breaks the harmonious walk ahead of the two travel companions (initial sentence of v.6d), the narrator creates suspense about the following happening that is about to take place. While in the previous scene the fish itself was its dominant motif (from its leaping up to its being salted), in the second, the focus becomes its collected organs (heart, liver and gall) and their medicinal value. The third and last geographical reference of the episode occurs in v.10, introduced by prepositional phrase καὶ ὅτε followed by the adverbial phrase καὶ ἤδη. Whereas the prepositional phrase stresses the importance of the toponym “Media” (which by the end of the book becomes Tobiah’s final home), the adverbial one serves to emphasize “Ecbatana.” Considering that so far for the reader, “Ecbatana” bears close link to Sarah and her drama, it seems to serve anticipating the reader the main argument of the following section: Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah (part of the angel’s mission, which the reader knows from 3:16–17). Although not being its sole, Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah is the argument that dominates the third and lengthiest section of the travel account, being focalized in various manners as the scene unfolds. The angel’s discourse to Tobiah in that section, is split in two by Tobiah’s reply (vv.14–15) to the angel’s first set of statements (vv.11–13). Such narrative articulation, thus, structures the lengthy section of 6:10–18 in three segments (angel’s words – Tobiah’s reply – angel’s words), turning the travel story of Tob 6 into a sevenfold narrative unit. Its length also underscores its narrative significance. Table 2.2 below represents graphically our proposed inner structure for Tob 6: Table 2.2: Inner structure of Tob 6 in outline. Narrative Introduction (6:2a–d) The Fish Episode (6:3–6c) {Delimiting Geographical Reference on v.2d} (III) Dialogue about the Fish Organs (6:6d–9) {Delimiting Geographical Reference on v.6d} (IV) Raphael’s first set of statements (6:10–13) {Delimiting Geographical Reference on v.10} (V) Tobiah’s reply to Raphael’s first set of statements (6:14–15) (VI) Raphael’s second set of statements (6:16–18j) (VII) Narrative Conclusion (6:18ijk) (I) (II)

2.1 Literary Remarks 

 51

2.1.3 Literary Features, Literary Form and Collocation in Tobit 2.1.3.1 Literary Features of Tob 6 From a statistical point of view, a noticeable unbalance is perceived in the chapter’s two major thematic sections. From its 713 words in GII, the fish section (vv.3–9) amounts a total of 215 words in comparison to the 434 of its second part, which regards Tobiah’s marriage arrangement with Sarah (vv.10–18).13 The narrator’s initial annotations (v.2) and final remarks (v.18k-n) amounts to an almost equal word number (33 and 30 words, respectively). Those figures reveal among other things that basically 2/3 of the episode, is devoted to the second thematic issue. Exploring further those cyphers, we notice that Tob 6’s first part concentrates a large number of verbal actions, while the second recounts merely two (speaking/listening). The discourse section certainly includes in project several actions. However, the actions recounted in the first part, correspond to those Tobiah fulfills during the travel story, whereas those from the discourse section, are programmatic for Tobiah’s performance from chapter 7 on. Noteworthy, in only a few verses (vv.3–6c), Tobiah is object of 10 verbal actions (κατέβη, περινίψασθαι, ἔκραξεν, ἐκράτησεν, ἀνήνεγκεν, ἀνασχίσας, συνήγαγεν, ὤπτησεν, ἔφαγεν, ἀφῆκεν) whereas the angel of only one (εἶπεν). That is going to be Raphael’s sole action in the episode, varying in the Greek text only in the narrator’s alternation of the verbal tense (from aorist to historical present) and form (from λέγω to λαλέω). Furthermore, the dominance of Raphael’s instructive interventions in the chapter is revealing. In the first segment (vv.3–6c), from 120 words, 54 correspond to his instructions, no word of Tobiah recorded (he only acts); in the second (vv.6d-9), from 93 words, 17 correspond to Tobiah’s question about the fish organs (v.7) whereas 53 to the angel’s explanation regarding it (vv.8–9); in the third and lengthier part of the chapter, Raphael’s annotations amount to 310 words (quite a talkative angel!) split by Tobiah’s brief intervention (vv.14–15) amounting to only 84. Significant in that respect is also the narrator’s intervention in the episode. His voice is perceivable mostly in the introductory sentences (vv.2a–d), in his recounting of the fish appearance and of Tobiah’s actions (vv.3–6c). It decreases significantly in volume as the account continues, resounding out loud again in the chapter’s conclusion.

13 In the short recension (GI), Tob 6 amounts a total of 492 words (221 words less), from which 144 covers the first part of the chapter, 318 the second. Curiously, the same number of words, 14, forms the introductory and the conclusive sentences of that recension. The ratio on that regard, practically equals to that of GII.

52 

 2 Literary and narrative remarks on Tob 6

The narrator’s annotations, however few and discreet, are narratively significant in several respects. At this point we highlight his remarks in vv.2a-b, 6d and 10. Articulated on the axis of verbs of movement (ἐξέρχομαι, πορεύομαι, ἐγγίζω and εἰσέρχομαι) those remarks serve significantly to shape chapter 6 as a travel account. According to Van den Eynde, that feature is perceived from the book’s very structure.14 In fact, it is mostly through those annotations that the episode is moved forward, since most of the chapter unfolds as a road conversation (vv.6d18h). Furthermore, the narrator’s threefold annotations of vv.2, 6 and 10, shape apparently Tobiah’s travel from Nineveh to Ecbatana as a two day or perhaps three days travel (discussed in detail in the exegesis in the next chapter of this study). Last, the “style” of Tob 6 reveals also peculiar traits. While dealing with that category in his study, Bar-Efrat distinguishes three strata that any narrative possesses.15 The first and more basic one constitutes its “raw material” so to speak, its basic units of words and phrases. Those units create a second stratum, the “world of the narration”, with its various components (characters, place, time, happenings, actions, etc.) the more appealing to the reader. Finally, with basis on the previous two, the reader is called to grasp still the third stratum, of the narrative’s ideas and meanings embodied in the narrative, which are usually not stated overtly.16 Specifically regarding that first stratum (language, words and sentences), considering the translative nature of our base text for Tobit, some remarks are due. Tobit story as found in the long recension (in general terms witnessed by GII, OL and Q), is markedly verbose in its phraseology and semitizing in its language. Per se, that feature does not constitute a particular difficulty. Its main consequence is an immediately perceivable redundant style. At times, the redundancy of GII appears with great probability the result of scribal error. An example of that could potentially be the apparent extra sentence regarding the dog in 6:2a, considering its absence for instance in the OL (perhaps the result of “dittography;” see discussion in chapter 3). Regarding the Semitizing feature of GII, its main impact seems to be the paratactic feature that it imprints in it. That specific feature demand at times, even regarding simple Greek phrases, minute consideration to determine properly the implied syntactic and logic relationships. Moreover, as it will stand out in our exegesis of Tob 6, GII word choices, in several crucial points, seems to present some sort of “semantic short circuit” caused 14 “Het ligt voor de hand dat ruimtelijke verplaatsingen de structur van een reisverhaal bepalen.” “It lies beforehand that spatial movements determine the structure of a travel story.” See Eynde, “Tobit”, 447. 15 See Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 197–237. 16 See Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 197.

2.1 Literary Remarks 

 53

mostly by their polysemic nature (result of translator’s choice or lack of skills?). At several points in fact, the translator of GII choses rather refined vocabulary to refer significantly simple narrative descriptions. The perception of that in the text helps us to avoid extrapolations and merely word based interpretations. Finally, because of that, the text at times, demands a delicate “guessing work” regarding the possible Semitic adjacent of a given term (particularly when textual evidence is lacking) in order to understand adequately the idea it tries to convey. 2.1.3.2 Literary Form of Tob 6 As mentioned before, occupying mostly with the theme of Tobiah’s travel (in its broadest span), the book of Tobit as a whole may be seen a travel story. Notwithstanding that, only two specific moments in the narrative deal with the actual travelling process of Tobiah: Tob 6:2–18 (travel to Ecbatana) and 11:1–4 (travel back to Nineveh). To that it could be added also Raphael-Azariah’s travel to Rages to retrieve Tobit’s money (Tob 9). That episode, however, imply young Tobiah only indirectly, as its commissioner, besides its significant brevity (only six verses) similarly the account of Tobiah’s return. Tob 6 continues to emerge as the travel narrative of Tobit. In simple terms therefore Tob 6 is a travel account. Some commentators appear a bit overexcited in recognizing an adventurous tone in Tob 6. Such tone is given by the presence of the dog and especially through the fish incident. A closer examination reveals a rather different picture. We may first notice that the fish event as such last narratively merely one verse (v.3). The narrator’s description of it, as analyzed more in detail later, only emphasizes its big size and its intent of devouring Tobiah’s foot. Tobiah’s catching and dragging of it to dry land under the angel’s serene encouragement, with no suggestion of battling, immediately neutralizes its risky and adventurous colorfulness, and gives it a rather parodic tone. Such evidence begins to suggest that the travel account was devised by the narrator with other purposes, as we will have opportunity to discuss in more detail later. We may already anticipate here that in fact, it seems construed above to highlight Tobiah’s interaction with God-sent angel in disguise. In that light,Tob 6 emerges as a “road-conversation.” From German scholarship came the suggestion of seeing Tobit as a whole, from a theological-literary perspective, as a “Führungsgeschichte” (a “story of guidance”).17 With that concept is conveyed the important OT theological idea found mostly in the Patriarchal stories of Genesis (12–50), of God’s leading action regarding to the Forefathers’ families and consequently the people as a whole. God’s presence and closeness is experienced in the life of individuals particularly 17 See in that regard, the thorough discussion of Rabenau, Studien, 100–116.

54 

 2 Literary and narrative remarks on Tob 6

through His direct and indirect guiding activity. Precisely through that idea, supported by Tobit’s articulation of verb εὐοδόω (Greek equivalent of Hebrew ‫חלץ‬ mostly Hiph.),18 Rabenau following the suggestions of Ruppert and Deselaers, has convincingly demonstrated for instance Tobit’s literary rapprochement with the Patriarchal story of Isaac’s marriage arrangement with Rebekah through Abraham’s servant (Gen 24) and the “Joseph story” (37;39–50).19 In Tobit as in the story of the Patriarchs God’s guidance brings all happenings (even the negative ones) to good end. The novelty of Tobit, particularly stressed through Tob 6, and in comparison with other OT stories involving “angels,”20 is God’s guidance made manifest through the human veil. “Der Engel erweist sich insgesamt als wissensreich und zuverlässig, zeigt aber nirgends übernatürliche, wunderbare Eigenschaften.”21 Raphael’s specific acting in the story appears surprising and revealing at same time. Tob 6 seems in fact a reenactment of that important OT theological idea mentioned above. That beneficent effect is enacted from the episode’s first scene (the fish-catching) and emphasized through its orchestration of the rest of the story in its discourse section. In that regard, Tob 6 may be seen as another literary sample of a “Führungsgeschichte,” although its peculiar features mark a significant development within that typology. Schüngel-Straumann described the book of Tobit as a “didaktische Wegerzählung,”22 Such literary characterization seems particularly applicable to Tob 6, as its literary form. 2.1.3.3 Collocation within Tobit Tob 6:2–18 follows immediately an intermezzo scene (5:18–6:1) recounting Tobit and Hannah’s argument regarding Tobiah’s departure, referred by the narrator in indirect speech in the last sequence of 5:17. Skillfully construed, such sentence causes the change of place to occur gradually intensifying the drama of that moment.

18 See Rabenau, Studien, 104–107. 19 Among other things, that literary and theological rapprochement significantly challenges the idea of the influence of Homer’s Telemachia in Tobit (at least directly). Rabenau however also recognizes similarities of Tobit’s literary genre with that of Greek romance: “Die beiden Motive der gefährdeten Romanze und der weiten Reise kennen wir auch aus dem griechischen Roman.” See Rabenau, Studien, 112. 20 See Rabenau, Studien, 112–115. 21 See Rabenau, Studien, 115. Rabenau’s annotation could be sharpened, in the sense that Raphael at least in one moment of the story acts “supernaturally:” while persecuting and biding the demon Asmodeus in Egypt (see 8:3). In any case, the reader only experiences that through the narrator’s remark, with no battle account being referred. Raphael’s action in the story, certainly has mostly “natural” appearance. 22 See Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 39.

2.2 Narrative remarks 

 55

Furthermore, the argument-scene builds narrating time for Tobiah to advance in his travelling, so that by the 6:2, he may be encountered already (relatively) far from home. Regarding that intermezzo scene, we may notice also that it is well tied up as a narrative unity through several internal cross-references. Hannah’s words about her son’s “coming in and out” (5:18: εἰσπορεύεται καὶ ἐκπορεύεται) “before” them, find its counterpart in Tobit’s words “he will go and he will return” (5:21: πορεύσεται […] καὶ […] ἐλεύσεται). Moreover, Tobit’s words “don’t be concerned” (5:21: μὴ λόγον ἔχε) begins and ends his initial statement in v.21, serving among other things to highlight his assurance that her eyes will see their son’s return. Most important still is the repetition of the theme of “crying,” which marks the beginning and end of that unity (5:18; 6:1). The initial καὶ ἐξῆλθεν of the last sentence of 5:17 is mirrored verbatim in the initial sentence of 6:2, thus forming a literary inclusion, enveloping the argument scene in between. Tob 5:18–6:1 also plays another important role in the collocation and characterization of Tobiah’s travel. Together with its parallel of 10:1–7 (both with Nineveh’s home as its setting), such account emphasizes the drama involved in that travel. Far from being a well prognosticated event, Tobiah’s journey is marked with lugubrious colors from its very outset. The idea of “death” appears already in its triggering (4:1), continuous present in its setting off process (5:18–6:1) and in the course of its development (see 6:15–16), surrounding Tobiah’s marriage process with Sarah and thematically dominant again in 10:1–7. Whereas in Tob 5, the mother is consoled by Tobit’s words (mostly for its mention of God’s angel), Tob 10 closes referring Hannah’s suffering and despair for considering her son dead (see 10:7). Contextually closer to it, the drama of Tob 5 reaches a certain climax in the scene of Tobiah’s encounter with the fish. Before the reader’s eyes, such dramatic feature surrounding Tobiah’s travel begins to be “dissolved” through the angel’s serene instructive control of the situation. Tob 7 marks a significant shift regarding Tobiah’s role in the story. The angel’s guidance and interaction with him during the travel of Tob 6 seems to bring him about a noticeable characterological development. If that is the case, the question about how the narrator does it, emerges as an interesting one. The following preliminary narrative analysis of Tob 6 strengthens that main thesis.

2.2 Narrative remarks 2.2.1 Catalogue of Components of Tob 6 While recounting the story of Tobiah’s travel with the angel, it is remarkable the number of narrative components from the previous chapters and of the next ones,

56 

 2 Literary and narrative remarks on Tob 6

that the narrator includes in it. Furthermore, it is no less significant the important ones from before and after that he does not explicitly mention (for example, the argument of almsgiving and the Jerusalem-motif). The possible sense for those inclusions and omissions in Tob 6 are inquired more in depth in the exegesis. At this point, it may suffice a catalogue of that narrative situation, with some comments. Table 2.3 below summarizes the narrative items that Tob 6 includes: Table 2.3: Narrative components of Tob 6. Category

Narrative Item and Textual Reference

Place

Tigris river (vv.2.3), Media (vv. 6.10), Ecbatana (v.10), Rages (v.13), the bridal chamber (vv.14.17), “incense-coals” (v.17)

Character

Tobiah (vv.2–4.6–7.11.13.18); Raphael-Azariah (vv.2.4– 5.7.11.14.18), Sarah (vv.11.12.13.18), Raguel (vv.11.12.13), Tobit and Hannah (vv.15–16), the dog (v.2), the fish (vv.3.4.5.6.7.8.17), the demon (vv.8.14.16.18), the Lord of Heaven (v.18)

Themes and motifs

Preservative, medicinal and apotropaic properties of natural elements (vv.5.6.8.9), demoniac influence (vv.8.14.18), eye disease (v.9), marriage and endogamy (vv.11.12.13.14.16.17.18), Law of Moses (v.13), death and burial (v.14.15), healing (v.8.9.17.18), salvation (v.18), paternal advice (vv.15.16), mercy and prayer (v.18)

Tob 6 contains most of the narratively significant places referred in Tob 1–5, evoking or mentioning their related characters and situations. Media was Tobit’s repeated destination at service of king Shalmaneser, where he left the money Tobiah shall set off to retrieve by Gabael “in the land of Media” (see 1:14–15). Ecbatana “in Media” is the city of Sarah the “daughter of Raguel” mentioned for the first time by the narrator while introducing her plight (3:7). Rages “of Media” (thus!) occurs for the first time in Tobit’s lips while referring his remembrance of the money by Gabael (4:1) and is repeated only twice more before Tob 6 by Azariah-Raphael in the process of his hiring (5:6).23 The bridal chamber and incense-coals are two key locations of Tob 8, related to Tobiah’s “fishy ritual” and marriage consummation (see 8:1–9), through which Sarah is freed from the demon (see 3:8.17; 8:3). Tob 6 refers only implicitly Nineveh, as the place of Tobiah’s departure (6:2) and return

23 Notably, “Media” in Tob 5 is repeated seven times (5:2.4.5.6(2x).10(2x)). The book of Tobit ends contrasting Nineveh, place of destruction according to the prophetic word, with Media, where there is σωτηρία (see 14:4). “Media” in Tob 14 also amounts seven occurrences (see 14:4 (2x).12.13.15 (2x)).

2.2 Narrative remarks 

 57

(11:1). We may also notice that Tob 6 does not include (at least not explicitly) two notably significant places in the preceding and following sections, Israel and Jerusalem (see Tob 1:4–8, 13 and 14:3–9). In any case, its mention of the book of Moses (6:13), repeated in the same terms in 7:11 (thus forming an inclusion), seems to link Tob 6 also with the Law of Moses of 1:8 (mentioned in the context of Tobit’s polemics with Israel’s disobedience to the Jerusalem worship). With respect to characters, Tob 6 refers Tobit through the vocative “my father”/“your father” (6:15–16) and Hannah, “my mother” (6:15). The appeal to the Lord of Heaven (6:18) evokes Tobit’s, to the “God who is in Heaven” (5:17), and anticipates the blessings at Tobiah’s departure from Ecbatana (see 10:11–13). The significance of Raguel in Tob 7–10 speaks for its own. Besides the evident theme of eye disease that connects 6:9 with Tobit’s plight (recall 2:9) and healing (11:7–8.10–13), Tob 6’s key theme of endogamy connects the chapter with Tobit’s statements in 1:9 and 4:12 which is restated and enacted in 7:11–13; 8:21; 10:12. Narratively significant is also Tobit’s theme of death and burial, repeatedly referred in Tob 1–5 (see 1:17–19; 2:3–4.7; 4:3–4) also restated and enacted after the travel account (see 8:9–11.18; 14:10–13). Mercy evokes Tobit’s preferred divine attribute24 and prayer, one of the book’s main literary expedients and teachings (recall for instance Tob 3:1–6.11–15; 13). Finally, we may also notice that Tob 6 includes three items that constitute complete novelties in relation to the previous chapters: the dog, the Tigris river and the fish. The Tigris is the only narrative item that occurs only in Tob 6. The intriguing dog appears once more in 11:4, forming a literary inclusion with its mention in 6:2. The fish and its organs, besides being a central argument of Tob 6, is still narratively significant in 8:2–3 and 11:8.11 with respect to the healing processes of Sarah and Tobit respectively.

2.2.2 Almsgiving and the Motif Jerusalem in Tob 6? The travel story at first glance does not seem to mention at least two significant components of Tobit’s ideological proposal: the theme of almsgiving and the motif Jerusalem. Tobit in fact stresses repeatedly the theme of “almsgiving.” While still in the land of Israel and above all while in exile, Tobit affirms to have given many “alms” (understood in the broader sense of works of mercy) to the Israelite brothers come with him to the exile (see 1:3). “Almsgiving” is Tobit’s main distinctive 24 See in that regard F. V. Reiterer, “An Archangel’s Theology: Raphael’s Speaking About God and the Concept of God in the Book of Tobit”, Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings. Origins, Development and Reception (ed. F. V. Reiterer – T. Nicklas – K. Schöpflin) (DCLY 2007; Berlin – Boston 2007) 255–275, 264–265.

58 

 2 Literary and narrative remarks on Tob 6

feature, explicitly underscored first by Raguel then by Gabael in the context of Tobiah’s sojourn in Ecbatana.25 Although not explicitly referred, that teaching could potentially be heard in Raphael’s emphasis on Raguel’s estate that Tobiah would inherit receiving Sarah as wife (recall 6:12). As his father Tobit, who was only able to carry out his intense beneficent work since he was, as it appears, of high social standing; so would Tobiah. Tobit in fact enjoins him in that teaching early in the story (see 4:7–11) and again at his death bed (recall 14:2.10–11). Furthermore, Tobiah will inherit the second half of his father-in-law’s estate as he moves to Ecbatana (see 14:13). Finally, like his father, Tobiah will be buried with esteem and honour (ἐνδόξως26). Being Tobit’s fame specially connected to his almsgiving activity (recall 14:1–2.11.13–14), the fact the narrator qualifies the end of their lives with the same expression, perhaps suggests that also Tobiah, after his father’s teachings and example, had followed that same path (even though the narrator says nothing explicit in this regard). Tobit’s insistence on the theme of almsgiving, finally, appears part of the “campaign of solidarity” among exiles that it intends to broadcast. With respect to the Jerusalem-motif, there may be a plausible allusion of it also in Tob 6. We may first recall in that regard that the story of Tobit (character) in fact opens and closes with a reference to Jerusalem (Tob 1 and 14). Although referring with it also the Temple with its religious services (1:4–5.7; 14:4–5), Jerusalem in Tobit is above all emphasized as the place where all the Israelites shall live safely in the land of Abraham (recall 14:8/9–11). Furthermore, after the angel’s departure, it becomes the center of Tobit’s prophetic hymn of praise (Tob 13:8–18). As noted by most commentators, the Jerusalem-motif in the book, is referred with mix of Deuteronomic and prophetic language (especially that of “Third Isaiah”) and a markedly eschatological orientation.27 As noted in our exegesis, it is peculiar the narrator’s use of the idea of “inheritance” with respect to Sarah in Tob 6. One plausible explanation for that, perhaps is the social aspect of endogamy, regarding avoidance of the alienation of Israelite patrimony (endogamous marriage assures that family patrimony remains within the Israelite circle via inheritance). However, considering Tobit’s typical Leitwortstil there may be another possible interpretation of that narrative situation. Such interpretation may plausibly imply Jerusalem.

25 Raguel: ἀνὴρ δίκαιος καὶ ποιῶν ἐλεημοσύνας (7:7); Gabael: ἀνδρὸς καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ δικαίου καὶ ἐλεημοποιοῦ (9:6). 26 See GELS, 236; LEH, 202 27 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 311–317; Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 210–218.

2.2 Narrative remarks 

 59

In his 2006 study, R. Bauckham proposed a symbolic reading of Tobit as a sort of “parable” for northern Israelite exiles.28 Among his suggestions, Bauckham proposed a symbolic interpretation from the meaning of the name Sarah (“princess”) in relation to Jerusalem. In his view, Sarah’s story could be read as a parable of the desolation and restoration of Jerusalem.29 In his instruction on endogamy to Tobiah in 4:12, after invoking the example of the patriarchs, Tobit affirms that having “taken wife from among their kin,” the descendants of the patriarchs were blessed in their “inheritance” of the land.30 Tobit there also reminds Tobiah that they are “son of the prophets,” meaning descendants of the patriarchs. In Tob 14, then, although the term “inheritance” is not used, the idea of inheriting the land is repeatedly stated through its repetition of the term “land” (see 14:4(3x).5.6.7.8). Rebuilt with honors, in the time of the promised restoration when God will gather all children of Israel in the land of Abraham, Jerusalem will welcome and house in joyful praises all returnees to live in safety in the land of Abraham. Tobit also includes the idea of the nations being converted to the God of Israel.31 Time being, endogamous marriage assures survival of Israelite exiles, in faithful keeping of their identity and the traditions of the ancestors. Tob 6’s peculiar use of the verb κληρονομέω regarding Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah, as noted in our exegesis, in light of the considerations just presented perhaps is to be interpreted also with a theological connotation.32 Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah (the motif of marriage also evoking biblical theme of the covenant) then could also suggest the author’s hope of the future restoration of the ideal Davidic kingdom, reading Tobiah symbolically as northern Israel and Sarah as “Jerusalem.”

2.2.3 Preliminary Narrative Analysis At “story” level33 the account of Tob 6, in comparison and contrast with other chapters of the book, emerges significantly restrained. After the short fish incident, notably characterized by “action” and thus imprinting a certain dynamism 28 See R. J. Bauckham, “Tobit as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel”, Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. R. J. Bredin) (LSTS 55; 2006) 140–164, 149–150. 29 See Bauckham, “Tobit as Parable”, 149–150. 30 οὗτοι πάντες ἔλαβον γυναῖκας ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶν καὶ εὐλογήθησαν ἐν τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτῶν κληρονομήσει γῆν. 31 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 313; J. Vermeylen, Jérusalem centre du monde : Développements et contestations d’une tradition biblique (LDiv 217; Paris 2007) 167–198. 32 See Foerster, κλῆρος, 760. 33 The terms “story” and “discourse” thereon are used in narratological terms. Recall in that regard S. Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca May 1980) 19.43.

60 

 2 Literary and narrative remarks on Tob 6

to its plot, the travel story reduces itself to a formulaic road conversation. Therefore, the main work of the narrator, that validates the significance of the travel story, is to be found at “discourse” level. The following considerations will begin to substantiate such thesis. As already highlighted in the previous segment, with respect to characters, Tob 6 presents itself with a remarkable richness, at discourse level. At story level, however, the episode begins introducing merely three: the lad, the angel and the dog (v.2). Their referral creates immediate expectation about their interaction during the travel. Peculiarly, only a few words later, the dog becomes a background character34 leaving its place to the fish, which polarizes the reader’s attention in the next sequence (vv.3–5). Although from that moment onto the end of the episode (although not continuously, but in fact, until Tob 11) the fish remains present through its healing organs, the narrator will make all efforts to spot in the foreground above all Tobiah and the angel in their dialogical interaction. It is precisely in the course of Tobiah’s dialogues with the angel in the following scenes, that the constellation of characters in Tob 6 augments exponentially. Each of them, directly or indirectly, is characterized by the narrator in various manners, including God. While reading a book, each person creates his own mental image of the specific characters.35 The narrator however plays an essential role in that process, since he is the one who donates the reader, the material for that representation.36 Most biblical narratologists recognize the Bible’s remarkable “economy” in the characterization of their personages. Bible stories for instance are almost bare of psychological insights regarding their characters.37 Verbal expressivity in speech or dialogue and above all action are the main resources biblical narrator’s use to construe their characters. Tob 6 is no exception in that regard. Therefore, the narrator’s portrayal of characters in it, even if sober, is to be examined carefully and expected to have impact for the sense of the narrative (discourse level). In narratives, space is an abstract mental reconstruction, created through the narrator’s art of recounting, the animation of characters by means of verbs of movement with their related predicates and enriched with the insertion of other existents in the narrative (like city, house, door, courtyard, river, mountain, valley, etc.). The sense of distance, through toponyms, mention of cardinal 34 Understood as a character that, although to be thought present, is made “invisible” in the narrative scenario. 35 See Chatman, Story and Discourse, 47. 36 On the argument of direct and indirect shaping of characters in biblical narratives, see BarEfrat, Narrative Art, 47–92. 37 See Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 77–86. Ska, Our Fathers Have Told Us, 83.

2.2 Narrative remarks 

 61

points,38 geographical annotations and adverbs of place (near, far, close, by) also enrich that mental representation.39 In comparison to other episodes in Tobit, Tob 6 is remarkably poor in its configuration of space. Were it not for its rather few geographical references tinting with some spatiality the rest of the account, the travel narrative would be felt a flat, and almost stage-deprived segment in dialogue format. After the fish scene, in fact, with its well-defined setting (the Tigris river), the reader gets the impression that the scenario fades away gradually and the narration transforms itself into an almost space-deprived unit, containing a dialogue between the two main characters (similar to the platonic Dialogues). Tob 6’s poverty of details regarding “place,” serves for instance to keep the reader’s attention on the main characters, their actions, reactions and interactions (thus in the who, the what and the how instead of the where or when). Furthermore, the vague geographical references in Tob 6 associated with verbs of movement serve to forward the story. Spatial references in Tob 6 therefore serve above all for plot development. In addition to that, through his vague annotations of place, the narrator creates some sort of “stations” in the narrative. We shall see that within such “stations,” characters are improved and key ideas spotted. Noteworthy, those narrative “stations” occupy different amount of narrating space in Tob 6, interestingly, in proportion to the amount of narrative information regarding characters, plot and ideas the narrator articulates in them. The ideas just mentioned lead us to some considerations on the category of time With respect to time, the travel narrative is even vaguer and more ambiguous. Tob 6’s few initial words (narrating time) serve to recount as it appears a whole travel day (narrated time), inferred through the narrator’s information about a “first night” befalling the travelers (v.2).40 Noteworthy, after that initial reference of time, ulterior explicit temporal markers referring to the travel story are completely absent and ideas of time are only inferable through the following vague references of place. For instance, with the few words of v.6d, the narrator reports that Tobiah and the angel are approaching Median territory. Nothing is referred at story level regarding the narrated time required on realistic basis to cover such distance. In fact, the distance from Nineveh in Assyria to Ecbatana in Media is ca. 300 miles (482 km), which on foot, would certainly have required weeks to cover. Similarly regarding the narrator’s final annotation of space, that announces 38 All four for instance are found in Tob 1:2. 39 Recall in that regard, Chatman, Story and Discourse, 97.101–107. 40 Narratological taxonomy is not uniform regarding “time.” Chatman, for instance, uses “story- time” for narrated time and “discourse-time,” for narrating time. See Chatman, Story and Discourse, 62–84; U. Eco, Six Walks in the Fictional Woods (The Charles Eliot Norton Lecture – 1993; Cambridge, MA – London 1994) 54.

62 

 2 Literary and narrative remarks on Tob 6

Tobiah’s eminent arrival in Ecbatana. As discussed more in detail in the exegesis, the geographical annotations with their mostly implied temporal references in Tob 6, have above all a rhetorical function (level of discourse). Precisely at discourse level that the narrative tempo of Tob 6 develops in a rather peculiar manner. First, it is noticeable the disparity in the narrating time of the episode’s three main sections. Although the importance of the fish’s incident dispenses apology, merely considering the significance of its healing organs at story level, it is noteworthy that the lengthiest section of the travel story recounts Azariah-Raphael’s dialogue with Tobiah about marriage with Sarah (vv.10–18). Just considering that we may conclude that the angelic discourses to Tobiah are of singular importance in the episode for the narrator’s purposes with it. Dialogues tend to slacken the narrative tempo. “To lengthen the time telling emphasizes the significance of what is told.”41 Moreover, in dialogued scenes, as Genette noted, there occurs a conventional sort of equality between “temps du récit” (narrating time) and “temps de l’histoire” (narrated time),42 although they do not correspond exactly.43 Among other things, through such resource the narrator is able to produce some sort of “real time” effect, through which the reader is involved in Tobiah’s conversation with the angel as if occurring in the moment of reading. We may also notice that while playing with the “duration” of the telling or its “rhythm” through acceleration (or speeding ups) and retardations (or slowing downs), the narrator produces several effects. For instance, while explaining Tobiah the medicinal properties of the fish’s organs (vv.8–9), Raphael’s words produce a “flash-forward” revealing to the reader the manner in which the two healing processes will take place. At same time, his statements also cause a “flashback” through which the reader recalls both Tobit and Sarah’s distressful situation (Tob 1–3) and the narrator’s important statements in 3:16–17.44 Through such narrative effects, the narrator keeps the reader’s interest in an account marked with anticipations. Some authors have pointed out that, the narrator’s “anticipations” in Tobit (early as Tob 3, the reader already knows of the story’s happy end) dissolves suspense, with the consequent decrease of the reader’s interest. Such process may be aggravated by the density of content (speech) in comparison to action. Whereas action possesses the inherent quality of attracting and keeping significantly the reader’s attention, by the tension and suspense it arises, dialogue often weakens 41 See Marguerat, – Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 86. 42 See G. Genette, Figures vol. 3. (Poetique; Paris 1999) 123. 43 See Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 148. 44 “As Gérard Genette says, a flashback seems to make up for something the author has forgotten, whereas the flash-forwards is a manifestation of narrative impatience.” See Eco, Six Walks, 30.

2.2 Narrative remarks 

 63

it, for the monotony it causes. The account of Tob 6 as already stated, although including some action, is densely burdened with discourse in dialogue format.45 Considered more closely, in fact, Tob 6’s “anti-suspense” emerges as a further rhetorical device employed by the narrator, among other things, to keep the readers interest. Moreover, its “discursive” feature, is significantly important to involve the reader in the narrative at a deeper level, by the reactions it is meant to cause and the questions it arises. In that sense, the reader’s interest is not cancelled by anticipations, but refocused from the shift of perspective (from the “what” to the “how” that happy end will concretely be brought about).46 As it will be argued, through both irony and anticipations the reader’s interest is not only maintained, but increased. The emerging narrative art of Tob 6 up to this point calls for some remarks on its narrator, considering that we as readers “only see and hear through the narrator’s eyes and ears.”47 The book of Tobit begins with an anonymous third person voice presenting the book’s main coordinates (1:1–2).48 Only few words later (1:3) Tobit-character becomes Tobit’s narrator who, in a sort of autobiography, shares his life experiences in first person discourse.49 That first person discourse continues until 3:6, when again an anonymous third person voice continues the story to its end. Is the third person narrator of 3:7 to be thought the same as 1:1–2? Is it to be thought Tobit-character who together with his son Tobiah receives the commission of putting into writing their experience with an angel of God (Tob 12:20)?50 Who is telling the travel story? We may recall in that regard that the concept of “narrator” does not coincide simpliciter with that of “author.”51 On the 45 See R. S. Schellenberg, “Suspense, Simultaneity, and Divine Providence in the Book of Tobit”, JBL 130/2 (2011) 313–327, 316. 46 See Eynde, “One Journey”, 274; “If the outcome of biblical stories is not in doubt (God will triumph over evil), the suspense rests on how and why.” Marguerat, – Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 131. 47 See Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 13; G. Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (Ithaca Aug. 1983) 212–262; Chatman, Story and Discourse, 147–151. 48 See in that regard, Fitzmyer, Tobit, 91–97. 49 In narratological terms, the first-person narrator in Tobit, besides being an intra- and homodiegetic narrator, is also a “narrating I” (“erzählendes Ich”) and a “narrated or experiencing I” (“erzähltes or erlebendes Ich”). For an explanation of that distinction, see Genette, Narrative Discourse, 252–254; R. Nünlist, “Narratological Concepts in the Greek Scholia”, Narratology and Interpretation (ed. J. Grethlein) (TCSV 4; Berlin – New York 2009) 63–83, 78. 50 See in that regard the interesting article of P. Rota Scalabrini, “Il ‘Libro’: l’Angelo necessario. Teologia della scrittura nel libro di Tobia”, StPat 50/3 (2003) 865–885. 51 As a real person or the one whose image the reader constructs while going through the narration (“implied author”). See in that regard Chatman, Story and Discourse, 147–141; Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 13–45; See also Genette, Narrative Discourse; W. C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction

64 

 2 Literary and narrative remarks on Tob 6

issue of Tob 6’s narrator specifically, there are no recent contributions. For purposes and insights regarding Tobit’s narrator in general, we refer the reader to the contributions of Nowell and Di Pede.52 At this point it may be of utility to consider the work of the narrator of Tob 6. The operate of the third person narrator of Tob 6 and in Tob 6 may be summarized thus.53 His interventions are reduced in number and brief. His voice is louder in the beginning and end of the episode, and in his remarks regarding Tobiah’s actions and reactions. He begins the section referring things from above and from a distant perspective. In the first scene, he puts himself close to the events narrated while regarding the second and third scenes his voice is barely audible, referring the characters’ location and in passing the word to them in the dialogical process. Moreover, most of the time, the narrator appears neutral and objective, and allows the characters to convey by themselves the important information and the reader to judge it by himself. He is in fact significantly attached to the reader with whom he is constantly dialoguing. For instance, through “hookwords” (or Leitwörte)54 he revives the reader’s expected-to-be-known religious traditions of his people (like Genesis stories); other times through his manner of recounting he reminds the reader of knowledge about the story that he already possesses but characters do not (for instance, repeatedly referring to Azariah as “the angel”); or by arising questions in the reader’s mind, as for instance, in the gap55 after Raphael’s answer about the fish’s organs regarding Tobiah’s thoughts and feelings; or causing surprise, as for instance, when referring that Tobiah knew about Sarah’s fate (v.14). The text, finally is an unfinished artwork, calling for the reader’s active cooperation for it to display all his latent meanings.56 “In the Book (Chicago – London 1983) 3–9; Sternberg, Poetics, 84–128; See also on the problem of narrators F. Deist, “A Note on the Narrator’s Voice in Gen 37,20–22”, ZAW 108 (1996) 621–622; Y.-K. Kim, “In Search of the Narrator’s Voice: A Discourse Analysis of 2 Kings 18:13–16”, JBL 127/3 (2008) 477–489. 52 Those and questions alike have intrigued commentators that approached Tobit story from a narrative perspective. See in that regard E. Di Pede, “Enqut̂e sur l’identité du narrateur du livre de Tobit”, Révéler les oeuvres de Dieu. Lecture narrative du livre de Tobie (éd. E. Di Pede – C. Lichtert – D. Luciani – C. Vialle – A. Wénin) (Le livre et le rouleau 46; Namur – Paris 2014) 141–155; See also Nowell, Narrative Technique and Theology, 158–179; I. Nowell, “The Narrator in the Book of Tobit”, SBLSP 27 (1988) 27–38. 53 Our characterization follows Bar-Efrat’s taxonomy regarding biblical narrators’ features. See Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 14–15. 54 See Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 121–122. 55 “The text speaks as much by what it does not say as what it does say.” See Marguerat, – Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 129. 56 See in that regard, Marguerat, – Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 121–123; In that regard we may recall Eco’s famous statement that, “Every text, after all, is a lazy machine asking

2.2 Narrative remarks 

 65

of Tobit, as in most OT narratives, the narrator plays a minor role” writes Nowell. “For this reason, however,” she continues, “the few contributions of the narrator to the content of the story grow in significance and demand careful attention. There is little or unnecessary description. What the narrator tells has meaning for the story.”57 Attached to the idea of narrator is that of reader or more properly that of “implied reader” (meaning “the recipient of the narrative constructed by the text and capable of realizing its meanings”)58 Tob 6’s implied reader, for instance, is expected (potentially) to be equipped at least with a basic knowledge of the Mesopotamian geography as well as a basic understanding of the accounts’ religious ideas of angel, demon, “book of Moses” or the very concept of God as “Lord of Heaven.” The idea of “reader” is also distinguished from that of “narratee,” meaning a concrete addressee mentioned “intra-textually,” like Theophilus in Lk 1:3. In Luke, Theophilus however is also a representative of the potential (implied) readers for whom Luke composed his Gospel. Tobiah is the narratee in several moments of the Tobit’s book, especially of Tobit’s instructive discourses (Tob 4, 12 and 14). Being also the addressee of the angel’s discourses during the travel story, he seems to embody (this is going to be our proposal) a particular target audience not only of the travel story in particular but also of the book of Tobit as a whole. Some considerations on the plot of Tob 6. Tob 6 characterizes itself, at the level of the “story,” with a remarkable simplicity and straightforwardness, with a sequence of incidents following one another in the direction of time. A young man accompanied and led by a hired stranger, travels on foot to retrieve family money. In a first stop, a fish surprises him, becomes the object of his actions and the subject of his conversation with his companion along the way. During those conversations, unexpected revelations are made to him, changing radically the sense and goal of his journey and in fact, his very life. The plot of Tob 6, in its overall features, at first glance, appears to be a “revelation plot,” considering the significant growth in knowledge that it brings about regarding characters but also for both characters and readers. Nevertheless, its significance at macro-plot level, the reader to do some of its work.” See Eco, Six Walks, 3; Regarding the role of the reader, a classical, worthy considering is U. Eco, Lector in fabula. La cooperazione interpretativa nei testi narrativi (Tascabili Bompiani 27; Milano 2010); There is no English translation of that specific work as such. However, most of its ideas may be found in the chapter with the same title in U. Eco, The Role of the Reader. Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington, IND 1984) 200–260. W. Iser, The Implied Reader. Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (Baltimore – London 1975) 51.275; W. Iser, The Act of Reading. A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore 1980). 57 See Nowell, Narrative Technique and Theology, 158. 58 See in that regard Marguerat, – Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 15; Chatman, Story and Discourse, 29.149–151; See Ska, Our Fathers Have Told Us, 40.

66 

 2 Literary and narrative remarks on Tob 6

Tob 6 has also possess features of a “resolution plot,” especially considering its main result (Tobiah’s acceptance of marrying Sarah).59 It is not superfluous to state that those two plot’s typologies, may combine in a narrative, as “good narratives usually do.”60 Finally, some remarks on the narrative rhetoric of Tob 6 (understood as “the totality of mechanisms by which the narrator composes a narrative”).61 At that level, special attention is due to word choices and order, syntactic articulation, literary devices (chiasmus, concentric structures, parallelism of members, etc.), figures of speech (metaphors, metonymy, hyperbole, simile, etc.) and inner- and intertextual connections. Among the various rhetorical devices used in the book as a whole, the narrator privileges particularly three in Tob 6. From a structural point of view, the use of the “figures of thought”62 like chiasmus (detected for instance in 6:4–5.12–13) and concentric structures (detected for instance in Tob 6:2–6.13) serve particularly to underline key ideas. Then, the recourse to irony.63 Although its definition is still a matter of debate, “irony” may be described as a mode of discourse by which the narrator suggests a sense opposite to that which he attributes to the characters of the story; it is the result of contrast or opposition in the knowledge conveyed.64 “Irony” is a literary component that one recognizes without much difficulty but whose formal definition seems to be still a matter of debate.65 In that regard, narratologists distinguish “verbal irony” (modulation of speech that subverts the basic sense of a statement) from “situational or dramatic irony” (created when narrator or character’s statements subvert the sense of a given context). In Tob 6 uses both types of irony, although mostly verbal. “Verbal 59 See Marguerat, – Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 56. 60 See Ska, Our Fathers Have Told Us, 19. 61 See Marguerat, – Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 21; See also in that regard Nowell, Narrative Technique and Theology, 192–220. 62 See in that regard, J.-N. Aletti, et al. Vocabulaire raisonné de l’exégèse biblique : les mots, les approaches, les auteurs (Paris 2003) 97–100. 63 “The story abounds with irony.” See L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Tobit”, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible (ed. M. D. Coogan) (Oxford – New York 2011) II 430–435, 432; See inthat regard I. Nowell, “Irony in the Book of Tobit”, TBT 33 (1995) 79–83; Moore, Tobit, 24–26; F. M. Macatangay, “Mισθóς and Irony in the Book of Tobit”, Bib 94/4 (2013) 576–584. 64 See in that regard, Marguerat, – Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 113–116; Ska, Our Fathers Have Told Us, 57–61; S. Attardo, “Irony as Relevant Inappropriateness”, JoP 32 (2000) 793–826. 65 “One important quality of style, not easy to define fully, is irony.” See M. C. Beardsley, Aesthetics. Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism (New York – Chicago – San Francisco – Atlanta 1974) 256–257; Pioneer and still a reference on the study of irony is W. C. Booth, A Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago – London 1975); See also C. J. Sharp, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington, IND 2009) 14–28.

2.2 Narrative remarks 

 67

irony” is found for instance in the angel’s statement on death penalty according to the book of Moses (6:13); “situational irony,” in the manner in which Tobiah refers to his travel companion in relation to the narrator’s (Tobiah as “Azariah;” the narrator as “the angel”). In brief, the story of a lengthy travel on real basis, not only occupies few verses (eighteen in total), but refers only one incident, resuming in dialogue-format. Its few and vague references of place and time, its sober characterization of characters and at the same time its remarkable use of rhetorical resources in such brief a text, cooperate to shape Tob 6 as an almost “a-historical” account. Adding to that the manner in which the narrator articulates the plot, refers to the characters and recounts its three moments, Tob 6 emerges fact a well-designed unit. Such elements invited to keep a special eye at the narrator’s articulation at level of discourse. Our exegesis in the next chapter therefore excavates Tob 6 mostly at that level, with the various aforementioned tools, following the narrator’s clues, trying to expose minutely the hidden components at play in it. The conjugation of such components in the hermeneutic process expects to substantiate our proposal regarding the aims intended by the narrator through such crafted a composition. We conclude our narrative overview, with G. Bellia’s annotation regarding Tobit’s refined narrative articulation, which is also certainly applicable to Tob 6 (as it will be shown in our study): It is enough to observe the prolix narrative with a happy ending that has been announced beforehand, the skillful weaving of the plot, the poorness of the historical and geographical details, the subtle and neat use of irony, the presence of animated dialogues and stretches of interior monologues which, with some mastery are turned into prayer. This and other rhetorical expedients employed in the book reveal an advanced awareness of narrative techniques of the Hellenistic school which the author puts at the service of a didactic-sapiential project in support of his religious creed.66

66 See Bellia, “From Tobit to Ben Sira”, 6.

3 Exegesis of Tobit 6 The exegesis of Tob 6 in this chapter is developed through the examination of the seven units of the travel story individually. As sketched in the general introduction, our study aims to examine the poetics of Tob 6, meaning the narrative articulation through which the narrator performs Tobiah’s characterological development (at first glance, the travel story’s main narrative function), necessary for the narrative coherence of the story considering the boy’s leading role after that journey. Tobiah’s leadership will manifest itself in a special manner with respect to the resolution of the plot’s two main complications (Tobit’s blindness and Sarah’s slavery to the demon), which according to the narrative program announced by the narrator in 3:16–17, corresponded to the angel. Each exegetical analysis concludes with a commentary explaining in literary terms the sense of the text according to the results of the exegesis.

Introductory Annotations Tobiah in the Book of Tobit Tobiah appears for the first time in the story in 1:9. From that first mention, Tobiah’s involvement in the plot grows in a crescendo from Tob 2 onwards, becoming more and more a central figure in the story, to the end of the book, which closes with his last days and death (14:14–15). The episode of the Pentecost meal (2:1–7), is significant for being the narrator’s first presentation of Tobiah as a character. There, Tobiah features as an obedient and devout son, notably dependent on his father. Such characterization is emphasized by the narrator through the known biblical convention of “utterance-implementation,” created through repetition in almost identical terms of the utterance’s content in the fulfillment statement.1 Paradoxically, Tobiah’s interaction with his father there marks the beginning of Tobit’s blindness process. Tobiah appears again in Tob 4, once more interacting with his father, as the addressee of Tobit wisdom-like instruction (4:1–12), a sort of “spiritual testament” (considering that Tobit asked God for death in 3:1–6).2 Such programmatic instructions resound narratively as the story unfolds (the lengthiest of them (4:12), being evoked by the angel in 6:16). The conclusion of that pericope, is Tobiah’s “solemn statement” of fulfilling all his father had 1 See Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 258. 2 Recall also 12:4–21; 14:3-11 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110615074-005

70 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

enjoined him (5:1). Tobiah’s statement underscores his filial piety and introduces the book’s first lengthy chapter having him as protagonist. Tob 5 has as its central theme Tobiah’s travel to the East (its preparation), having as its climax Tobiah’s encounter with the angel in disguise, his first interaction with him and the angel’s first interaction with blind Tobit (see 5:3–17). In Tob 5 the narrator continues to highlight Tobiah’s filial piety, but also his immaturity. In revealing to Tobiah about the money in deposit by Gabael, Tobit does not request explicitly his son to travel with the purpose of retrieving it.3 It is Tobiah who infers it from his father’s words in 4:20 and offers himself to the task, notwithstanding his unawareness of the ways to Media and his concern of being unknown to Gabael (5:1–2).4 Again there, the utterance-implementation pattern (5:3–4) stresses Tobiah’s feature as an obedient son. Tobiah’s immaturity and child-like dependence on his father is emphasized in Tobiah’s complete reliance on his father to resolve his objections.5 Ironically, blind Tobit is the one to handle the situation, being the deviser of his son’s travel up to the minimum details. Tobiah’s naïveté is further underscored through his believing all the explanations Azariah ironically gives him, marked with evident mistakes (see 5:4–6);6 his request to Azariah to wait until his check up with his father instead of bringing him right away home (5:7–8); and finally, his father’s enjoinment to prepare all needed for the travel (as if by himself he would not have thought such necessary step) followed by his encouragement to depart with “brother” Azariah (5:17). Such depiction and characterization of Tobiah is immediately contrasted by his decisiveness and leadership right from the beginning of chapter 7, during the whole sojourn at Raguel’s house and thereon. Such notable characterological development mediates Tobiah’s travel with the angel in Tob 6. The episodes that follow his return from Ecbatana (Tob 11–14) continue to underscore such development.

3 “What is strange in the versions apart from the Vulgate is that Tobit never tells Tobiah that he should go to get the money.” See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 179. 4 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 185; Only after Tobiah manifests his predisposition in retrieving the money, Tobit then explicitly formulates it as a command. See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 187. 5 See B. Ego, “Tobit and Tobias: A Model for an Ideal Father-Son Relationship”, Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ed. A. Passaro) (DCLY 2012–2013; Berlin – New York 2012) 77–86. 6 Raphael’s geographic annotations in 5:6 are in fact, the opposite of reality since it is Rages and not Ecbatana that stays in the plain. Unrealistic is also his statement of two full days to cover the distance between the two cities (ca. 325 km). The angel’s statements in that whole section are markedly ironical.

3 Exegesis of Tobit 6 

 71

Travel, Money Retrieval, Existential Quest The answer to the question of why Tobiah is traveling to the east, where precisely he is heading, and what for, fundamental axes of the travel account, is given to the reader diaphanously at story level. Tobit’s profound depression led him to ask God for death, which reminded him of the great sum in deposit by Gabael in Media, about which he decided to inform his son Tobiah (see Tob 4:1). That remembrance and report, triggers Tobiah’s travel to Media to retrieve his father’s patrimony (Tob 6–11). Considered more closely, such elements imply interesting ideas that may guide us to understand more precisely the intended sense of the travel story. First, the idea of a “quest.” Tobiah’s travel after a real “hidden treasure,”7 in fact a fortune,8 in a distant and for-him-unknown land (see 5:2), may be precisely categorized through such concept. That which begins as a material quest for Tobiah, however, through the angel’s instructions during the travel of Tob 6, is refocused into an existential one (search for a spouse). Such existential quest in the end, becomes for Tobiah a profound and transforming achievement regarding himself (maturing) and a key accomplishment regarding Sarah’s freedom from the killing demon: a real conquest. Furthermore, Tobiah’s quest is intimately connected to the theme of a travel under guidance of an angel of God in “disguise” as human. Behind Azariah-Raphael’s specific action in the story, the narrator seems affirming the idea of God’s action in history9 in a interestingly new manner. God helps his faithful in need through guidance; human mediation is implied in that guidance and effective in the helping activity. Finally, the idea of travel in Tob 6 underlines the cursory, liminal aspect of the episode. At surface level, Tobiah journeys from Nineveh to Ecbatana (his travel’s destination finally), from life at home in Nineveh to unexpected and peculiar sojourn at Raguel’s house in Ecbatana. At a deeper level, however, his journey is a real process of growth, from immature young life at his Ninevite home to the first moments of a matured-married life at Ecbatana.

7 As it appears, the knowledge of the money apparently only Tobit had. See 1:14; 4:1–2.20. 8 According to Tob 1:14, ten “talents” of silver. As measure of weight, 1 talent varied between 26 to 36 kg; as a unit of money, it varied from place to place, but was always highly valued. To give the reader an idea of that sum, according to BAGD, 803, the value of one Aegina silver talent was about 1500 euros! See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 115. 9 Noteworthy, merely from a statistical point of view, regarding Tobit’s “actors,” it is God the one who is referred the most (God: 52x; LORD: 29x). Recall Table 2.3, p. 56.

72 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) In the narrative introduction to the travel account the omniscient narrator recounts the reader the departure from Nineveh of the company composed by the lad (Tobiah), the angel (Raphael) and unique in second Temple Jewish literature, “the” dog (clearly Tobiah’s). The first day of the journey comes to its end, as night falls upon them at the shore of the Tigris’ river. Thus, the company has to stop and camp by there.

Exegesis 3.1.1 Note on the Composition of V.2 Besides some specific text critical problem, it is the paratactic feature of v.2, with sentences conjoined merely by coordinate conjunction (a grammatical feature of our translated Tobit as a whole), that makes it difficult to grasp its inner logic and function regarding the account’s first sequence (the fish-incident) and the chapter as a whole. Tob 6:2 is composed by four sentences, conveying four different ideas and as it appears, with different narrative functions. Recapitulating the narrative thread dropped in 5:17 (repeating verbs ἐξέρχομαι + πορεύομαι used there and thus forming an inclusion), v.2a reports Tobiah’s factual departure from Nineveh, his being on the road with the angel (the “programme” of Tob 6) and the characters implicated in the travel (the lad, the angel and the dog). Verse 2b, then, appears almost redundant, stating Tobiah’s moving along with the angel; v.2c introduces a temporal reference, their being surprised by night; v.2d, the company’s camping by the Tigris river because of that. What is the sense and function of the apparently redundant phrase of v.2b? Merely the new coordinates of time and place (vv.2cd), that set the stage for the fish incident, constitute its “exposition”? How are we to understand v.2 as the introduction of the travel story?

3.1.2 The Lad, the Angel and the Dog (v.2a) 3.1.2.1 Text Critical Note on V.2a In comparison to other witnesses, v.2a in GII has an extra sentence regarding the dog. The phrase καὶ ὁ κύων ἐξῆλθεν μετ᾽αὐτοῦ, which emphasizes the dog’s attachment to Tobiah, is absent in all OL witnesses which also transmit in Latin the long form of the story. OL reads only et canis secutus est eos which seems equivalent to GII καὶ {ὁ κύων} ἐπορεύθη μετ᾽ αὐτῶν. That “extra”

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 73

sentence regarding the dog certainly copes with GII verbose style. OL reading could be merely the result of the translative process, with the double information of its Greek Vorlage shortened in one single sentence. GI notably abridges v.2a encrypting its actors. Do its plural forms (initial participial phrase [οἱ δὲ πορευόμενοι] + main verb [ἦλθον]) imply as in GII the lad, the angel and the dog as actors? The answer is positive. Reading the text backwards only few verses, we discover that the “missing” content of GI is actually found in its reading for 5:17. Table 3.1 below displays the texts in parallel with their shared elements highlighted: Table 3.1: Tob 6:2ab (GII) compared with Tob 5:17 (GI). GII

καὶ ἐξῆλθεν τὸ παιδίον καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος μετ᾽ αʋ᾽τοʋ˜ καὶ ὁ κʋ́ων ἐξῆλθεν μετ᾽αʋ᾽τοʋ˜ καὶ ἐπορεʋ́θη μετ᾽αʋ᾽τῶν καὶ ἐπορεʋ́θησαν ἀμφότεροι

GI

5:17

καὶ ἐξῆλθαν ἀμφότεροι ἀπελθεῖν καὶ ὁ κʋ́ων τοʋ˜ παιδαρίοʋ μετ᾽ αʋ᾽τῶν {6:2 οἱ δὲ πορεʋόμενοι τὴν ὁδὸν}

In comparison to GII and OL, the Vulgate also refers the dog in 6:2a (Vg 6:1). In contrast to the OL and GII, Vulgate’s reading turns the angel invisible so to speak (not mentioning him), enucleates Tobiah and in relation to him, mentions the dog.10 In that manner, the dog seems to serve the narrator primarily for Tobiah’s characterization, as noted by some Church Fathers.11 All OL available witnesses besides transmitting only one dog-sentence for Tob 6:2, transmit the personal pronoun in plural (eos\eis).12 Considering the Vg’s dependence also on an OL text, as Skemp demonstrated13 (and not only on an Aramaic text as stated by Jerome in the introduction of his translation14), Jerome’s text appears edited for some reason. The above mentioned evidence suggests the dog as the edition-motivated element. Appearing quite ex abrupto in the narrative, in the beginning of a new important section and apparently not adding any significant meaning to the narrative (right after its mention in 6:2a, the dog becomes a background character until Tob 11), Tobiah’s dog has puzzled commentators from old. The extra dog-sentence of GII could be simply the result of scribal error (dittography). The repetition of similar elements in such short a text may have 10 Vg: profectus est ergo Tobias et canis secutus est eum 11 See discussion further below. 12 See WGS, 178. 13 See V. T. M. Skemp, The Vulgate of Tobit Compared With Other Ancient Witnesses (SBLDS 180; Atlanta 2000) 455–470. 14 See Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 15–21.

74 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

confused the copyist of S.15 It could also be the result of editorial activity. The copyist/editor of GII may have added the extra dog sentence to smoothen the idea of a dog side by side with an angel of God (considering ancient views regarding dogs). Evidence suggests the same regarding GI. While keeping the dogelement for its presence in other textual witnesses, GI editor’s work was perhaps to “hide the dog between the lines,” transposing it to 5:17 and rearranging v.2a. Such ideological bias is further confirmed considering the medieval Hebrew MSS and Aramaic text of Tobit. Although most likely translations of a Greek Vorlage and as it appears akin to GI text type, in most Hebrew (four out of five) and the Bodleian Aramaic, the dog is completely absent (in absolute).16 Exception being the Faggius Hebrew MS (=Constantinople 1519) which is considered to be a paraphrastic translation or a free recasting of a Greek text, interestingly work of a Jewish convert to Christianity.17 Considering however, the difficulty in establishing the textual relationship between the various witnesses, we opted to accept GII reading for v.2a as such (thus with its “extra” dog-sentence) and interpret the text accordingly. 3.1.2.2 Τό παιδίον / τό παιδάριον – ὁ ἄγγελος In Tob 6 there occurs a peculiar play with vocatives on behalf of the narrator.18 Particularly significant is his repeated referral of Tobiah as “the lad” and AzariahRaphael as “the angel” contrasting with the manner the characters addressed each other in the account. With respect to Tobiah, the narrator’s preferred term seems to be παιδάριον (always with the article).19 In GII, however, the term παιδίον occurs twice in parallel to it (in 6:2a.3a respectively). In the LXX, τὸ παιδίον translates mostly MT: ‫( הילד‬TAR: ‫)רביא‬, whereas τὸ παιδάριον (as in Gen 22:5) renders MT: ‫( הנער‬TAR: ‫)עולימא‬.20 GI reads τὸ παιδάριον in 6:3a and also in 5:17, in the 15 Excluding the predicate of subject “dog” (ἐξῆλθεν μετ᾽αὐτοῦ), we encounter in v.2ab the conjunction (καί) repeated 4x (out of 7 in v.2); 2x the prepositional phrase μετά + personal pronoun; once verb ἐξέρχομαι and twice verb πορεύομαι. The copyist may have repeated the initial ἐξῆλθεν and the precedent μετ᾽αὐτοῦ while transcribing the text, creating the extra dog-sentence. Grammatically, the referent of prepositional phrase (μετ᾽αὐτοῦ) in that sentence appears to be “the angel,” since the noun “lad” is already a distant antecedent, the dog coming out with the angel sounds rather awkward. 16 See WGS, 266–267. 17 See WGS, 35–37.173; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 14. 18 To the best of our knowledge, P. Deselaers was the first to suggest the significance of such word-play. See Deselaers, Das Buch Tobit, 123 note 149. 19 See 6:3b.4a.4b.6a.7a.11a. 20 See E. Hatch, – H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) (Grand Rapids (MI) 1998) 1045–1048;

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 75

dog sentence that seems to refer that of v.2a in GII, as discussed before. Qumran Aramaic fragments transmit the term ‫ עולימא‬for 6:3a.3b.4a.7. In light of such evidence, we may hypothesize that perhaps the OG read consistently τὸ παιδάριον in places where ‫ עולימא‬occurred. Thus, the long form of the story in Greek would have read also τὸ παιδάριον in 6:2a.3a, which would indicate a consistency in its use in Tob 6.21 The exact term used in the text and whether or not it was consistently the same in the OG, is in a sense relative. It is the narrator’s repeated emphasis to the reader of Tobiah as “the lad” in relation to Azariah-Raphael as “the angel” that is worthy noticing. In that regard, the very stative etymology of the Greek term παῖς, “one who (still) behave like a child,” and its consequent processual verbal meaning of “being in process of education” strengthens that view.22

Commentary The initial sentence of Tob 6 is straightforward in its narrative description. Verse 2a is a resumptive statement through which the narrator takes back the narrative thread left behind in 5:17, by restating the idea of Tobiah’s departure through the same cluster of verbs (ἐξέρχομαι / πορεύομαι). V.2a also serves highlighting the episode’s main actors, presented as the lad, the angel and surprisingly the dog. The narrator’s voice is particularly audible in it, highlighting for the reader, as he will insist during the episode, Tobiah as “the lad” and in relation to him, Raphael as “the angel.”23 V.2a initial καί may be interpreted with a consequential value T. Muraoka, Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint : Keyed to the Hatch-Redpath Concordance (Grand Rapids, MI 1998) 89. 21 GI in fact reads consistently τό παιδάριον as a manner to refer Tobiah in Tob 6 until v.18. In comparison to GII, GI has one extra occurrence of the noun in 6:3, only one occurrence in 6:4 (GII 2x) with one last hit in 6:14 (where GII already reads the name “Tobiah”). Summary: occurrences of τὸ παιδάριον in GI (7x): vv.3 (2x).4.6.7.11.14; in GII (6x): vv.3.4(2x).6.7.11). 22 See R. S. P. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek (IEED 10; Leiden 2010) II,1142–1143. 23 Greek Tobit as well as Qumran material, refers Raphael simply as “angel” (ἄγγελος/‫)מלאך‬ and not “archangel” (ἀρχάγγελος, in the sense of “chief angel”) as in other STP Jewish literature (like Greek 1 Enoch for instance). The name “Raphael” occurs in 1 Enoch, Jubilees and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs as “holy angel” or “angel of the presence” (recall Tob 12:15), in association with “Michael, Gabriel and Phanuel” (see 1 Enoch 71:8–9; Jub. 10:7 refers “Michael” as ἀρχάγγελος). The same attribution appears in the NT, in the so called “Letter of Jude” (see Jude 1:9), which alludes to a passage from Test. Moses (1:2). See M. Barker, “The Archangel Raphael in the Book of Tobit”, Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. R. J. Bredin) (LSTS 55; 2006) 118–128; C. Berner, “The Four (or Seven) Archangels in the First Book of Enoch and Early Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period”, Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings. Origins, Development and Reception (ed. F. V. Reiterer – T. Nicklas – K. Schöpflin)

76 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

regarding the previous segment (5:18–6:1), which mediates the double referral of Tobiah’s departure (last sentence of 5:17; 6:2a). Such intermezzo serves among other things to intensify the drama that surrounds Tobiah’s departure. In that light, the initial conjunction could be rendered as “and so…,” in the sense of “in such conditions, leaving behind such family situation,” young Tobiah departed from home. Moreover, the manner the narrator spots the subject “Tobiah” in v.2a, with the verb in the singular and the other actors referred in relation to him (through preposition μετά + third person pronoun), suggests that the drama of the travel concerns Tobiah in a special manner. Furthermore, the referral of Tobiah’s departure in 5:17 (last sentence) is particularly significant. The information that Tobiah “departed to go his way” (καὶ ἐξῆλθεν πορευθῆναι τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτου) announces certainly his setting off to carry on his father’s “commissioned” journey to Media. Nevertheless, the often transposed sense of the term “way” in the LXX, meaning “conduct, manner of life, behavior” (thus with a moral connotation)24 may guide our interpretation of that statement also in that direction. In Tobit, the metaphorical sense of “way” occurs early in the story, in fact, in the opening statement of its autobiographical section (1:3). The use of the term there in our view, among other things, serves to create ambiguity, so that, in all of its occurrences in Tobit (twenty one in total in GII) a transposed sense may be potentially grasped also in places where, mere literal sense is expected.25 With respect to Tobiah’s departure, we may say that he leaves home to “go his way” in the deeper sense of “emancipating himself, growing.” Considering that the narrator’s resumptive statement of 6:2a repeats the exact (DCLY 2007; Berlin – New York (NY) 2007) 395–411; See also P.-E. Dion, “Raphaël l’Exorciste”, Bib 57 (1976) 399–413; M. Mach, “Raphael (‫)רפאל‬,” DDD, 688; B. Ego, “The Figure of the Angel Raphael According to his Farewell Address in Tob 12:6–20”, Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings. Origins, Development and Reception (ed. F. V. Reiterer – T. Nicklas – K. Schöpflin) (DCLY 2007; Berlin 2007) 239–253; H. Macumber, Angelic Intermediaries. The Development of a Revelatory Tradition (University of St. Michael’s College; Toronto 2012) https://tspace.library.utoronto. ca/handle/1807/34893; C. Wassen, “Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings. Origins, Development and Reception (ed. F. V. Reiterer – T. Nicklas –K. Schöpflin) (DCLY 2007; Berlin – New York 2007) 499–523; Although a bit outdated but still interesting are the articles of G. A. Barton, “The Origin of the Names of Angels and Demons in the Extra-Canonical Apocalyptic Literature to 100 A.D.”, JBL 31/4 (1912) 156–167; and R. Pautrel,  – M. Lefebvre, “Trois textes de Tobie sur Raphaël (Tob. V,22; III,16s; XII,12–15)”, RSR 39 (1951) 115–24. 24 See W. Michaelis, “ὁδός,” TDNT V, 42–96, 50–60; J. Bergman et al., “‫דרך‬,” TDOT 2, 288–312. See also in that regard, H.-D. Neef, “‫דרך‬,” ThWQ I, 716–725. 25 For instance, the blockage of the ways to Media by Sennacherib (1:15), in light of Tobit’s depiction of the environment of the Diaspora in Tob 1 and Tobit’s statement in 14:4, may be also read as an understatement of pagan power’s hostility to the Israelites and their way of life and to salvation.

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 77

initial form (καὶ ἐξῆλθεν) of the final sequence of 5:17, also conjoining it verb πορεύομαι in v.2a, such transposed meaning may be said to be echoed there also. We may also notice in that regard, that whenever addressing Tobiah in direct speech, main characters, except Raphael, refer to him with the appellative “child” (παιδίον). Tobit, especially as transmitted in GII, is the LXX book with the greatest number of occurrences of the term παιδίον (40 occurrences [24%]; 47 if we include those occurring in its major gap of 4:7–19 according to MS 319), followed by Genesis (33 occurrences [20%]). There is a concentration of the term in the first part of the book up to Tobiah’s travel (20 occurrences), mostly in Tobit’s mouth (19 occurrences). The term occurs another 13 times within the marriage section (chapters 7–11), mostly in Raguel’s lips (9 occurrences), with the final six occurrences, again in Tobit’s mouth, in chapters 12–14.26 Significantly, the term παιδίον has innumerous occurrences where Tobiah is the object of some sort of injunction. The manner in which the narrator refers to Tobiah during the travel therefore seems intended to stress his characterological age up to that moment. The fact that after the travel and as result of it, Tobiah marries Sarah, he seems thought by the author at least of nubile age (whatever the marriage average age would have been in Israelite circles during his time). However, considering his characterization in the first part of the story, the narrator’s appellative of him as “the lad” in Tob 6 serves to underscore his (im)maturity as a character at the beginning of the travel, together with the idea of the dog leaving home with him. In effect, the idea of Tobiah leaving home, as it appears for the first time in a long journey (see 5:2), signifies also his (first) moving away from home entourage, from his protective environment, from his father and mother. Up to Tob 6, in fact, Tobiah is depicted as a dependent and “overprotected” son. Tobit-narrator implicitly suggests that idea for instance, while recounting that during his blindness, it is first Ahiqar (in fact during two years; see 2:10) and then Hannah (women’s hired labor being exceptional in those times) who provide for the family expenses. Such information seems to suggest Tobiah’s young age but it may also be interpreted conveying the idea of his protected statute within the family. His attachment to his father may perhaps be inferred in Edna’s statement of his resemblance to Tobit in 7:2.27 26 With respect to the characters, the noun παιδίον is distributed in the following manner: in the mouth of Tobit (25x) in 2: 2(2x).3; 4:4–5.[MS 319: 8(2x).12(2x).13.14.16].19–21;5:3.9.17.21; 12:1.4; 14: 3.8 [9] (2x).10 / of Hannah (5x) in 5:18–19; 10: 4.7; 11:9 / of Raguel (9x) in 7:7.10(2x).11(2x); 8:21(2x);10:8.11 / and of Edna (1x), in 10:12. 27 Ὡς ὅμοιος ὁ νεανίσκος οὗτος Τωβεῖ. 4Q197 4 iii 4–5 witness to the term ‫ עלימא‬in that Aramaic text. See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 226.

78 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

The presence of the dog with the verbs the narrator uses in relation to it (come out – move along) seems to underline a typical behavior of dogs regarding their owners. The narrator remains silent on the reason why Tobiah brought his dog along for the trip. At story level, the dog has no role, even if in v.2a it is brought to the foreground with Tobiah and the angel. From v.2b onto 11:4, he is kept as a background character. Moreover, the opening line of the travel story by putting together lad (human element), angel (divine) and dog (natural), seems proleptically announcing the three driving forces in action during the episode and through it for story’s happy end.28 Their synergy is skillfully and repeatedly underscored by the narrator in each section that composes Tob 6.

Excursus 1 – Tobiah’s Dog: A Literary-Historical Inquiry Tobiah’s dog, although with apparently no function in the story, continues to challenge commentators.29 That which has puzzled commentators from old is not only the positive presence of a dog in a Jewish narrative as the why of it, regarding which, as Moore stated, much has been written but little has been settled.30 Although the dog may not play any specific role at story level, its function may be appreciated at discourse level.

A. Tobiah’s Dog from a Literary-Narrative Perspective Animals as Literary Device in Bible Stories and in Tobit Animals as literary device are well attested in the Bible as well as in the surrounding ANE literature. J. M. Sasson, in his commentary on Jonah, discusses in

28 See W. J. Urbrock, “Angels, Bird-droppings and Fish liver : the Earth Story in Tobit”, Readings from the Perspective of Earth (ed. N. C. Habel) (Cleveland, OH 2000) 125–137; I. Fröhlich, “Creation in the Book of Tobit”, Theologies of Creation in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. In Honour of Hans Klein (ed. T. Nicklas – K. Zamfir) (Berlin – New York 2010) 35–50, 38–42; J. E. Owens, “Asmodeus: A Less Than Minor Character in the Book of Tobit”, Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings. Origins, Development and Reception (ed. F. V. Reiterer – T. Nicklas – K. Schöpflin) (DCLY 2007; Berlin 2007) 277–290, 281. 29 See N. S. Jacobs, “”What About the Dog?” Tobit’s Mysterious Canine Revisited”, Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals. Papers of the Jubilee Meeting of the International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books (ed. G. G. Xeravits – Zsengellér – X. Szabó) (DCLS 22; Berlin, Boston 2014) 221–246. 30 See Moore, Tobit, 197.

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 79

a balanced manner the presence and function of animals in Biblical narratives.31 According to him, their appearance in Bible stories may be grouped in three main categories: (1) Animals as characters in a scene (best example of it being the serpent in Gen 3); (2) Animals as focusing device32 (for example, Balaam’s donkey in Nm 22:22–35); (3) Animals with cameo appearances (as Kish’s donkeys in 1 Sam 9).33 Tobiah’s dog is only one of the animals mentioned in Tobit. In effect, right from its first chapters, Tobit mentions calf, sheep and cattle to evoke halakhic prescriptions of the Torah, which Tobit used to fulfill (see Tob 1:5–6). Innocent sparrows, resting upon his courtyard walls cause with their droppings Tobit’s blindness, the pathos with which the author builds up one of his story’s main arguments (see 2:10). A kid then, Hannah’s gift from her employees, is the “detonator” of her harsh argument with Tobit and the remote cause of a series of key scenes in the story.34 There follows the dog, as Tobiah’s travel companion together with the angel. Prominent is the appearance of the fish, followed by rams and steers (see 7:9; 8:19), camels and donkeys (see 9:2; 10:10). The reappearance of the dog in 11:4c, closes the animals’ mention in the story. Such catalogue suffices to show that Tobit’s author highly valued the presence of animals as narrative components. As it emerges from it, some animals play an important role for plot development (as the sparrows, the kid and the fish), while others are included with rhetoric purposes (like the cortege of animals following the newlyweds in Tob 10, included apparently to recall the patriarchal stories of Isaac’s marriage [see Gen 24:35] and of Jacob’s [see Gen 30:43]).35 Although, in some cases animals’ presence relate to negative or complicating situations in the narrative (as in the case of the sparrows or the kid), the narrator sees none of them with contempt. While most animals appear familiar to the biblical world, two of them however have few or no appearances in bible stories, the fish and the dog respectively.

31 See J. M. Sasson, Jonah. A New Translation With Introduction, Commentary and Interpretation (AB 24B; New York 1990) 144–46. 32 Although not explaining thoroughly his concepts, from his examples it emerges that by “focusing device,” Sasson seems to refer to the use of animals in a narrative that, although not being character or agents per se, polarize the attention of the reader in a given passage around specific ideas, implicitly conveyed through them. 33 With respect to Bible mention of donkeys, see K. C. Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World. Ceremony and Symbol (History, Archeology and Culture in the Levant 2; Winona Lake, IND 2011) 160–204. 34 Tobit’s request for death, which activates the remembrance of the money in deposit with Gabael, which causes Tobiah’s travel. See 2:11–14; 3:1–6. 35 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 267; Priero, Tobia, 125; Virgulin, Tobia, 118; Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 169–170.

80 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Tobiah’s Dog in Tob 11:4 Although a background character since 6:3, Tobiah’s dog reemerges surprisingly in 11:4, interestingly in the same setting as its debut. Tob 11:4 as transmitted by GII, — ) instead displays two important textual problems. First, it reads “the Lord” (ὁ κς of “dog” (ὁ κύων).36 Second, v.4c ends in S with the strange phrase “behind him and her son,” which appears clearly out of place there. The phrase is most certainly the result of scribal error, due perhaps to parablepsis.37 Hanhart corrected it as “from behind” (ἐκ τῶν ὀπίσω).38 From a narrative point of view, precisely the place of the dog in the return scene marks the major difference among witnesses.39 Its returning “ahead of them” as in the GIII and S2,40 changes significantly the sense of the text. Likewise in Jerome’s Vulgate, whose reading (11:9) describes the dog as a “herald” of Tobiah’s return.41 Jerome’s reading seems responsible for the Homeric connection detected by several ancient interpreters of Tobit (who commented mostly the Vg). According to MacDonald, Telemachus’ special “signature” were his two dogs.42 Although Telemachus did not travel with his dogs, in Od. 2:11, it is said he had them follow him.43 Most important, in Od. 16:4–10 Homer mentions Telemachus’ two barking dogs44 fawning without barking at his return, thus announcing it so to speak to his father Odysseus. It is difficult to not recognize the resemblances between Homer’s and Tobit’s descriptions. Most likely it was Jerome, willingly or not, who having in mind the Odyssey, shaped his translation after it.45 Ilgen proposed to interpret the pronoun αὐτὸν of the initial

36 See WGS, 266; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 275, note 5; Noteworthy folio 6 of S (which comprehends Tob 10:12–11:17, with 11:4 transmitted in the second column, lines 8 to 16) is marked by other textual incongruences like that of Tob 10:13. See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 270. 37 The exact same phrase that ends verse 4 in the Sinaiticus (τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτῆς) is found in 11:5. See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 275. 38 Hanhart, Tobit, 147. 39 See WGS, 267. 40 GIII: καὶ ὁ κύων προέτρεχεν ἔμπροσθέν αὐτῶν. S2 translates in Syriac a GIII text type: ‫ܘܟܠܒܐ ܪܗܛ ܠܗ ܩܕܡܝܗܘܢ‬. See WGS, 48. Preposition ἔμπροσθέν is the spatial contrast to ὀπίσω / ὄπισθεν. See BDF, §215. 41 Tunc praecucurrit canis, qui simul fuerat in via et quasi nuntius adveniens blandimento suae caudae gaudebat; “Then the dog that had been with them on the road ran ahead, and almost like a herald, it showed rejoicement through the charms of its tail.” See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 277. 42 See MacDonald, Tobit and the Odyssey, 35–36. 43 ἅμα τῷ γε δύω κύνες ἀργοὶ ἕποντο. 44 κύνες ὑλακόμωροι. 45 “The words blandimento suae caudae gaudebat are probably a playful addition by Jerome.” See Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 340; On the influence of Greek literary culture in Jerome’s translations, see K. O. Sandnes, The challenge of Homer : School, Pagan Poets and Early Christianity (Library of New Testament studies 400; London 2009); With respect to the use of Homer in Greek

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 81

phrase of 11:6 in both GI and GII (καὶ προσενόησεν αὐτὸν ἐρχόμενον) as referring to the dog. However, as both Fritzsche46 and Sengelmann47 demonstrated, the last phrase of 11:5 and the next statement of 11:6, in both GI and GII, annul that proposal. Tobiah’s Dog: Interpreting the Evidence The dog mention in Tobit, 6:2a /11:4c, forms a literary inclusion, construed not only by the similar narrative context (road travel) and description regarding the dog (accompanying the travelers), but also by the repetition of the phrase “and the two of them went along together” of 6:2b in 11:4a. Therefore, its presence in the narrative seems to be interpreted in relation to one another. Moreover, such literary inclusion seems to serve also delimiting Tobiah’s travel in its broad span, considering that the dog appears at Tobiah’s departure and return accounts. The narrator only brings the dog to the foreground in those two moments in the narrative, as traveler companion of Tobiah and Raphael. During the rest of the narration, the dog is kept in the background. Introducing the dog in 6:2a, the narrator implicitly informs the reader that young Tobiah had a dog and that he took his dog with him on the trip to Media. The dog is thus presented as a pet, in a positive manner. However, what the dog would or could have done or not done, in the travel section and throughout Tobiah’s sojourn in Media, is left completely to the reader’s imagination.48 From a linguistic point of view, the author describes narratively the dog in association with verbs of movement (with πορεύομαι and ἐξέρχομαι in 6:2a; and with συνέρχομαι in 11:4c) thus in a dynamic manner. Moreover, in its two occurrences the dog is mentioned when Tobiah is moving alone with Azariah-Raphael. Whenever stationed or with other characters on the stage, the dog is kept as a background character. In any case, for the narrator, the lad, the angel and the dog formed the travel “crew.”

education, see R. F. Hock, “Homer in Greek-Roman Education”, Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. R. J. Bredin) (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Harrisburg, PA 2001) 56– 77. 46 See O. F. Fritzsche, Kurzgefasstes exegestisches Handbuch zu den Apocryphen des Alten Testamentes vol. 2. (Leipzig 1853) 59. 47 See H. Sengelmann, Das Buch Tobit (Hamburg 1857) 107. 48 See in that regard for instance its representation in F. Guardi (1712–1793), “Tobias with the Fish,” at Chiesa di San Raffaele, Venice (part of seven other canvasses entitled “Storie di Tobiolo” (1750–1752); or by J. H. Steen (1626–1679) in “The Wedding Night of Tobias and Sarah” (ca. 1660).

82 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Tobiah’s Dog: Further Literary Remarks While discussing the various interpretations regarding the dog, Moore mentioned two scholars that tried to account for its presence in Tobit from a mere literary point of view.49 Brockington suggested that Tobiah’s dog was “an intimate touch” to the story.50 Although not explaining further, Brockington’s remark seems to go in the direction of narrative quality’s improvement. Osty then, interprets the dog as “a charming detail which delights.”51 Osty’s annotation is neither an isolate nor an original one. Back in 1803, Brentanus had already noted that, “der Umstand das der Haushund dem jungen Tobias nachgelaufen sein, wird zur Verschönerung der Geschichte hier [11:4c–Ed.], und im Griechischen Kap. V,16 bemerkt.”52 Bullard then stated that the dog added “a familiar sort of touch” to the story,53 and more recently Jacobs sustained that “like the dog in Tobit, great narratives tend to retain a sense of the mysterious. Just when one understands what is going on, something comes up that surprises, delights and confounds.”54 The dog therefore among other things served the narrator to intensify the reader’s involvement with the story. The impact of the dog for the esthetics of the text in that same line had also been suggested by Arnald in 1822.55 The presence of animals in a narrative in fact improve considerably its picturesque dimension. Denser picturesque features of a story activates more effectively the reader’s imaginative representation of it. Consequently, his more vivid participation in its narrative world and ideology, brings a more intense enjoyment of it. The dog in Tobit, together with the other animals, add a singular brushstroke of vivacity and colorfulness to the narration, without which, a story like that of Tob 6, marked by speech, would otherwise be flat and boring. Narrative embellishments, noticed Arnald, allow the text to be read with more delight or remembered with more ease.56 Like other elements of creation, the presence of animals in narratives also intensify its mnemonic dynamics. Bible

49 See Moore, Tobit, 197. 50 See L. H. Brockington, A Critical Introduction to the Apocrypha (Studies in Theology; London 1961) 34. 51 See E. Osty, – J. Trinquet, Esdras-Néhémie-Tobie-Judith-Esther (La Bible 10; Paris 1970) 192. 52 Brentanus comments GI. See D. Brentanus, Die heilige Schrift des alten Testaments, Zwenten Theils, dritten Bands erste halfte, welche die Bücher Tobias, Judith und Esther enthalt (Frankfurtam-Main 1803) 44. 53 See R. A. Bullard, – H. Hatton, A Handbook on Tobit and Judith (New York 2001) 106. 54 See Jacobs, “What about the Dog”, 244. 55 More information about this author is found in the following segment. 56 See R. Arnald, “A Commentary Upon the Book of Tobit”, A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old and New Testament and the Apocrypha. (ed. J. R. Pitman) vol. 4. (London 1822) 610–642, 601.

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 83

stories like that of the “serpent” in Gen 3 or Jonah’s “whale”, became popularized particularly for their emblematic animal characters. In the case of Tobit, together with the fish, Tobiah’s dog seems to serve also that purpose.

B. Tobiah’s Dog from a Historical Perspective From Patristic Times to the 18th Century Before the time of Ambrose of Milan (ca. 340–397 A.D.), numerous early Christian writers,57 commented on passages of Tobit story, but none gave thought to the dog argument in particular.58 Ambrose’s approach to the dog marks for centuries an important trend of its interpretation. Ambrose’s ideas are found in his Hexameron,59 a commentary on the six days of creation (Gen 1). Concluded most likely during Easter time of 387, Ambrose’s sermons were influenced by the homonymous work of Basil of Caesarea (329/303– 379 A.D.).60 While commenting on the creation of terrestrial animals, Ambrose comments also on some qualities of dogs, that might be instructive to man. In line with Basil, Ambrose highlights dog’s sense of gratitude towards and defense of their owners. With respect to dog’s gratitude, Ambrose evokes Tobiah’s dog. After saying that such a dog had the privilege of being a traveler and companion of an angel, without further explanation, Ambrose states that it was Raphael who caused the dog to be brought out as Tobiah’s travel companion. Proceeding so, the angel, who had accepted to be Tobiah’s mentor, aimed to educate him regarding gratitude (towards God, understood).61 The demon is driven out, concludes Ambrose, partly as the result of that grateful recognition, partly to the marriage contract assumed by Tobiah.

57 See G. M. Driussi, Il Libro di Tobia nella letteratura cristiana antica (I–V secolo) (Diss. Pontificia Università Lateranense; Roma 2003) 68–106. 58 The situation is understandable considering the canonical discussion during the first centuries (Tobit is a “deuterocanonical” writing). See L. M. McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, MA 2007) 200–206. 59 See Ambrosius, Hexaemeron (PL 14, 1A–142D). Ambrose actually wrote, what at first glance, might appear a brief commentary on Tobit. See Ambrosius, De Tobia (PL 14, 589A–622C). That work, however, while based on some passages of Tobit is in effect an invective, in fact a severe critic, to usury (apparently a serious pastoral problem of Ambrose’s time) taking advantage of Tobit’s enjoinment on almsgiving. 60 See Basilius Caesariensis, Hom. In Hex. IX, 3–4 (PG 29, 82C–85A). 61 See Ambrosius, Hex. VI, 4, 17 (PL 14, 119B).

84 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Venerable Bede (672/673–735 A.D.), in his commentary to Tobit (composed around 731),62 takes an allegorical approach. In that optic, Tobiah is seen as a figure of Christ, and the scenes related to him, especially those of the travel story (in its broadest span), are interpreted in relation to Christ’s life and that of the Church. While commenting on the phrase, “et canis secutus est eum,” (Tob 6:1 Vg),63 Bede explains the dog as a figure of the preachers and doctors of the New Testament era, who following Jesus, defend with their word his flock from the devil and heretics.64 His idea seems to be that, as a dog defends his master, by barking and sometimes even attacking a potential enemy, in a similar way act the preachers of the Word, by addressing the opponents of their flock with apologetic discourses, they protect and defend them. Noteworthy, Bede’s annotations, as Ambrose’s regarding gratitude, are based on the nature of dogs in general, and not from its action in Tobit story. Although Bede comments little on the dog, his commentary constitutes an important hallmark regarding Tobit hermeneutics, being as it appears the first (Christian) author to undertake a commentary to the whole book and exerting with his allegorical approach significant influence in posterior commentators. Distant by so many centuries from Bede and Ambrose, Conradus Pellicanus (1478–1556)65 witnesses the continuity of their respective interpretive proposals.66 Pellicanus bases his annotations mostly in the consideration of dog’s nature. After stating that “nihil est in animalibus cane fidelius,” Pellicanus asserts how dogs manifest their instinctive “affection” towards their owners, in their sense of defense regarding them and their perseverance at their side when injured (concrete expression of their fidelity). Pellicanus also alludes to dogs’ sagacity and their locative memory even regarding long itineraries. In that sense, Pellicanus interprets Tobiah’s dog stating that, “It is not gratuitous that, the dog could not abandon [Tobiah] the beloved son of his master, but having departed, he followed him. Also through it God’s very Providence is present.”67 For Pellicanus thus, the dog was a family pet and its presence at Tobiah’s side, a symbol of fidelity and of

62 See Beda Venerabilis, In Librum Beati Patris Tobiae Allegorica Interpretatio (PL 91, 923D–938A). 63 Contrary to Ambrose, who still construed his exegesis based on the Old Latin textual tradition, from Bede on, most commentators will base themselves on the Vulgate text. 64 See Beda, In Liber Patris Tobiae, 928A. 65 Pellicanus (Konrad Kürsner) was a German Protestant theologian, humanist, and Christian Hebraist. 66 See C. Pellicanus, Commentarium in libros sacros ecclesiasticos ... in librum Tobiae vol. 5. (Zurich 1535) V, 1–33. 67 See Pellicanus, Commentarium in libros sacros, 18.

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 85

God’s Providence. That which dogs do by nature, received from the Creator, manifests a divine project regarding man (in our case regarding Tobiah). Some years later, Nicolaus Serarius (1555–1609),68 published his commentary on the books of Tobit, Judith, Ester and Maccabees (1599).69 Serarius’ work, among other things is particularly interesting for its methodology and structure, appearing pioneer to our modern ways.70 His annotations on Tobit, are developed in the form of questions, regarding the most important issues of each chapter. Although regarding chapter 6 he seems to overlook the dog (beginning his annotations directly regarding the fish), in his first question to chapter 11, Serarius maybe for the first time (explicitly) in course of its interpretative history, makes an explicit connection between Tobit and Homer’s Odyssey.71 For Serarius, the dog together with few other details in the narrative activates that intertextual link. The main problem with that connection and interpretation, is that Serarius’ proposal is based on the Vulgate’s unique reading for 11:4 (Vg 11:9, as discussed before).72 Roughly half a century later, apparently in the beginning of the sixteen hundreds, Fabianus Iustinianus (1578–1627),73 published his historical and moral commentary on Tobit.74 Apparently, Iustinianus aimed to explain Tobit actually through the medieval four senses of Scripture (literal, allegorical, historical and anagogical).75 His remarks on Tobiah’s dog, however, follow mostly Bede’s allegorical interpretation. Interestingly, with that same approach however, Iustinianus offers a new insight on the dog. He first sees Tobiah’s journey as a symbol of man’s pilgrimage on earth. Then, he interprets Tobiah’s two travel companions, the angel and the dog, as symbols of man’s twofold allies for that earthly journey: 68 Serarius was a French jesuit, exegete and Church historian. 69 See N. Serarius, In Sacros Divinorum Bibliorum Libros, Tobiam, Iudith, Esther, Machabaeos, Commentarius (Mainz 1610) 59–73. 70 His introduction to Tobit, for instance, deals with the questions of author, date of composition, language, place, etc.; while developing his commentary on the Vulgate text, Serarius makes constant reference to Greek witnesses (clearly GI text type, whose readings he sometimes even includes in the corpus of his commentary) and to some Hebrew witnesses (apparently Münster and Fagius). 71 See Serarius, In Sacros Divinorum Bibliorum Libros, Tobiam, Iudith, Esther, Machabaeos, Commentarius, 101; Grotius, while commenting on Tob 11:4 (11:9 in his commentary: praecucurrit canis), also noted the homeric link: “Memor veteris domini ut Argus in Odyssea.” See H. de Groot, Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum (Hallae 1776) III,9. 72 For a discussion on the similarities and differences in that regard, see MacDonald, “Tobit and the Odyssey”, 11–40, 34–36; See also Nickelsburg, “Tobit, Genesis and the Odyssey”, 41–55. 73 Roman clergy from the Oratory of S. Phillip Neri. 74 See F. Iustinianus, Tobias Explanationibus Historicis et Documentis Moralibus Illustratus (Antwerp 1629) 303–334. 75 See Augustinus de Dacia, Rotulus pugillaris (ed. A. Walz 1929) I, 256.

86 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

the guardian angel and conscience (respectively Raphael and the dog).76 With great ingenuousness and accuracy, Iustinianus explores the various functions of the conscience in the person in relation to dogs’ natural characteristics.77 Iustinianus also re-proses the Homeric interlink and the ideas of dogs’ sense of defense, protection and gratitude already mentioned, moralizing mostly on man’s ingratitude towards God.78 Cornelius a Lapide79 (1567–1637) then also commented on Tobit.80 Regarding Tob 6:2, a Lapide wrote that the dog followed Tobiah “in the manner that family dogs follow heroes, by whom they are grown.”81 The novelty of his interpretation, in comparison to most of the previous ones, falls mostly in being clearly based on the narrative description of the text (thus based in its literal sense even if glossing the Vulgate text). One might suspect that his insight may have come taking into consideration the idea of the Homeric link for Tobit (although he does not mention it explicitly). Nevertheless, Cornelius proposal seems to go beyond the sense implied in that connection, in considering the dog as part of the narrator’s characterization of young Tobiah as hero (who in antiquity was often described accompanied by a pet) although he does not specifies further which exact hero or heroes he had in mind. Few years later, in 1644, Didaci de Celada (1588–1661),82 published his monumental Commentarius Litteralis ac Moralis on Tobit.83 As its very title indicates, Celada comments Tobit from those two senses of the text. Incorporating in his explanation Ambrose, Sanctius and Iustinianus’ remarks on the dog, no mention

76 See Iustinianus, Tobias, 304–305. 77 Conscience never abandons man in prosperous as well as in adverse situations, like dogs; conscience’s verdict presents man the good to be done and the evil to be avoided, which Iustinianus parallels to dog’s sense of smelling through which it distinguishes the useful from the harmful; as dogs bark before potential threats or even bite actual enemies, thus also man’s conscience, alerts him of potential evil but also torments when man accomplishes it. Conscience takes away man’s inner peace in views of repentance and conversion. 78 See Iustinianus, Tobias, 305. 79 Latin name form of Cornelius Cornelissen van den Steen, a Flemish jesuit and exegete. 80 See C. A. Lapide, Commentarius in Esdram, Nehemiam, Tobiam, Iudith, Esther et Machabaeos (Venice 1717) 61–62. 81 “Uti canes familiares sequuntur heros, a quibus nutriuntur.” See Lapide, Commentarius in Tobiam, 61. 82 Diego de Celada was a Spanish jesuit and theologian. 83 Besides being almost 800 pages long, Celada’s commentary is remarkable also for including in Latin translation, Greek and Syriac alternative readings to the Vulgate and for the detailed indexes he enriched his work. See D. d. Celada, Commentarius Litteralis ac Moralis in Tobiae Historiam (Leyden 1644) 362–415.

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 87

however is made of Bede’s.84 Celada’s first annotation was that “it is habitual for domestic dogs to follow their masters.”85 Contrary to Ambrose’s idea of the angel causing the dog to come along, Celada sees it as a normal process, considering the nature of dogs (who like to be wherever their owners are). Celada’s idea of canes domesticos, could be dependent on that of his (jesuit) confrere Cornelius a Lapide (canes familiares). Furthermore, still from his literal approach, Celada concludes that “Obviae sunt utilitates, quas canis praestat in via, praesertim eas perstringat.” The dog was brought along for its utility to the travelers (locative memory). Augustinus Calmet (1672–1757),86 in his Commentarius Litteralis on Tobit,87 completed apparently around 1704, restates the idea of dogs as part of the characterization of heroes (same idea proposed by A Lapide and Serarius). To make his point in that regard, Calmet evokes explicitly Homer’s Odyssey. Although being a fable, states Calmet, “it refers a truth” which Scripture emulates. That truth, exposed also by old historians, refers dogs’ faithfulness to their “heroic” masters until death.88 Richard Arnald (1698/1700–1756), finally, who published a commentary on Tobit in 1752, while reproducing the idea of dog’s sense of protection and defense, relates the dog to Tobiah’s task of retrieving family money.89 The dog in his view was brought as “companion for the way” and “guardian of [his] master.”90 Also assenting to Tobit’s dependence on Homer, Arnald’s contribution focuses on the literary function of the dog (presented in the previous section). From the 19th Century to the Present The development of the historical-critical method(s) in the second half of the 19th century, which so influenced biblical exegesis, also impacted on Tobit studies, the doghermeneutics being a case in point. Two contributions from Jewish 84 See Celada, Commentarius, 362 §232. 85 See Celada, Commentarius, 362. 86 Antoine Augustin Calmet was a French benedictine monk. 87 See A. Calmet, Commentarius Literalis in Omnes Libros Veteris Testamentis vol. 5. (Paris 1791) V, 44–52. 88 See Calmet, Commentarius Literalis, 46. 89 See Arnald, “A Commentary Upon the Book of Tobit”, 601–641. 90 “Tobias was to take a long journey into a strange country, and to bring a large sum of money back with him, attended only with one other person, who, though an angel, was not discovered by him to be such; and does not the reason of the thing speak itself, that the dog was thought a proper guard under these circumstances, and therefore, taken by Tobias, Comesque viae dominique satelles? Pliny thinks it worth his while to remark this use of dogs, and gives an instance of a master preserved in his journey from thieves by his dog (Nat. Hist. lib. Viii. Cap. 40).” Arnald, “A Commentary Upon the Book of Tobit”, 624.

88 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Scholarship, seem to have particularly collaborated for that watershed. In 1889, the English scholar I. Abrahams (1858–1925), published a short note on Tobiah’s dog that became almost proverbial in Tobit studies. Basing himself on the absence of the dog in Neubauer’s Aramaic text and in most of the Hebrew MSS of Tobit, Abrahams proposed that the Semitic text would have read “the heart” (hlb) instead of “dog” (klb). By work of a careless copyist, the text was modified and in that manner handed on. Thus, that which Tobiah took with him for the trip was already a (fish) heart!91 Abraham’s initial statement regarding Ancient Near East contempt regarding dogs, in his brief and peculiar a contribution, will become a repeated slogan in successive articles. In fact, from his same circle, and around the same time or few years later, S. Schechter (1847–1915) and K. Kohler (1843–1926), expanded on the argument of dogs in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, in their important article for the Jewish Encyclopedia (published in New York between 1901 and 1906).92 Well documented, their contribution, substantiating Abrahams’ statement, influences significantly the dog hermeneutics thereon. Statute of Dogs in the ANE, Ancient Israel and the OT Although in Western culture, the presence of dogs as pets is taken almost for granted (even if its presence in familial environments had also its history),93 in the Ancient Near East and Ancient Israel the acceptance of dogs as pets developed only gradually. The issue however is somewhat complex.94 OT evidence for instance is scarce and contrasting. On the one hand, it witnesses to the use

91 See I. Abrahams, “Tobit’s Dog”, JQR 3/1 (1889) 288. 92 See S. Schechter, – K. Kohler, “Dog”, The Jewish Encyclopedia. A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature and Customs of the Jewish People from Earliest Times to the Present Day (ed. I. Singer) (New York 1901) IV, 630–632. 93 See in that regard the interesting article of S. Menache, “Dogs and Human Beings: A Story of Friendship”, Soc Anim 6/1 (1998) 67–86. 94 See D. W. Thomas, “Kelebh ‘Dog’: Its Origin and Some Usages of It in the Old Testament”, VT  10 (1960) 410–427; G. Brunet, “L’hébreu kèlèb”, VT 35/4 (1985) 485–488; G. D. Miller, “Attitudes Toward Dogs in Ancient Israel: A Reassessment”, JSOT 32/4 (2008) 487–500; P. Ackerman-Lieberman, – R.Zalashik, eds. A Jew’s Best friend? The Image of the Dog Throughout Jewish History (Brighton 2013); A. Basson, “Dog Imagery in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East”, JSem 15/1 (2006) 92–106; J. B. Burns, “Devotee or Deviate: The ”Dog” (”keleb”) in Ancient Israel as a Symbol of Male Passivity and Perversion”, JRs 2 (2000) http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2000/2000–6.pdf; J. S. Crawford, “Caleb the Dog : How a Biblical Good Guy Got a Bad Name”, BibRev 20/2 (2004) 20–27,45; J. M Hutton, “‘Abdi-Asirta, the Slave, the Dog’: Self-Abasement and Invective in the Amarna Letters, the Lachish Letters, and 2 Sam 3:8”, ZAH 15–16 (2002) 2–18.

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 89

of shepherd dogs and therefore, to a certain degree of domestication95; on the other, the mention of dogs and the use of the term as epithet with pejorative connotations in several occasions, seems to hint to a more generalized negative view of them in ancient Israelite society.96 In light of that it is understandable why a generalized custom of having dogs as pets, was most likely extraneous back then. Schechter and Kohler, suggested that dogs’ aversion by ancient Israelites is significantly understood considering ancient dogs’ breeds.97 Although according to Feliks “there is no explicit information extant on the breeds of dogs reared in biblical times,”98 from the available evidence regarding the Ancient Near East in that respect, it may be supposed that, contrary to the situation nowadays, dog breeds then related to semi-savage species. Apparently more similar to wolves or jackals than to pet dogs those breeds were held with contempt mostly for their fierce, unsympathetic habits. Mostly living in the streets, they acted as scavengers, feeding on animal flesh unfit for man, and often devouring even human corpses. For that and other reasons, Rabbis alerted about dogs as carriers of harmful diseases to humans, especially rabies (often associated with evil spirit’s possession or witchcraft).99 Although to some extent domesticated and used for instance by shepherds or farmers as watch dogs over herds, house and tents (situation alluded to also in the OT), dogs’ noble qualities and thus its suitability as companions at homes and surroundings, would only be recognized with the pass of time. Furthermore, to those reasons it may be added ancient Jewish “beliefs” associated with dogs’ behavior. In fact, dogs’ howling, as the Rabbis report, was associated with the presence of the angel of death or death itself in its vicinity.100 Although to some extent convincing, an important objection to that reasoning may begin with the concept “Ancient Israel,” which is significantly vague to indicate too lengthy a span of time, with such a contrasting situation regarding dogs

95 See Job 30:7; Isa 56:10. 96 See Exod 22:30; 1 Kgs 14:11; 16:4; 21:23; 2 Kgs 9:10.36; Jer 15:3. 97 See Schechter, – Kohler, “Dog”, 630. 98 See J. Feliks, “Dogs”, EJ V, 733. 99 For a treatment of dogs in Rabbinic sources, see L. Glesinger, “Le chien dans la médecine et dans la superstition médicale juives”, Mélanges d’histoire de la médecine hébraïque. Études choisies de la “Revue d’histoire de la médecine hébraïque” (1948–1985) (éds. G. Freudenthal – S. Kottek) (Leiden 2003) 485–495; J. Schwartz, “Dogs in Jewish Society of the Second Temple Period and in the Time of Mishnah and Talmud”, JJS 55/2 (2004) 246–277; S. Menache, “From Unclean Species to Man’s Best Friend: Dogs in the Biblical, Mishnaic and Talmud Periods”, A Jew’s Best friend? The Image of the Dog Throughout Jewish History (eds. P. Ackerman-Lieberman – R. Zalashik) (Brighton 2013) 36–51. 100 To that and other ancient Jewish beliefs associated with dogs’ behavior, see Schechter, – Kohler, “Dog”, 632.

90 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

(in different times and also zones of Israel, as well as in the later Diasporas). In fact, the discovery of a whole cemetery of dogs from Achaemenid Ashkelon (30 miles south of Tel Aviv)101 about twenty years ago, demanded reassessment of those conclusions. In the site there were found several hundreds of intact dog skeletons both of adult animals and puppies, appearing to be of the same breed (what today would be called either greyhound or a whippet), each dog buried with great care in an individual grave. Initially thought to be related to some ancient cult or used in some ritual sacrifice, the integrity of the skeletons (with no broken bones or necks or any other signs of slaughter) and the absence of any offering bowls or juglets, discarded that hypothesis.102 The individual graves and the manner in which the dogs were buried, discarded also the hypothesis about the dogs dying of rabies or some epidemic. The dogs appear to have died naturally, some of which presented signs of old age and particular care. They were most likely hunting dogs of wealthy elite (fact attested for example, by an ivory comb from Megiddo showing a dog hunting a mountain goat). Therefore, even if at times, pet dogs may not have been in vogue in Jewish circles, evidence shows that in others, they were viewed positively.103 The positive reference of dogs in Jubilees on the one hand and the mosaics depicting dogs, from the Mishnaic and Talmudic times, on the other, also support such view.104 Tobiah’s Dog in Art To complete our reception history, a brief note on the impact of Tobit story in art seems due.105 As Hart rightly stated, “The history of interpretation of biblical texts

101 See P. Wapnish, “Pampered Pooches or Plain Pariahs? The Ashkelon Dog Burials”, BA 56.2 (1993) 55–80; M. Edrey, “The Dog Burials at Achaemenid Ashkelon Revisited”, Tel Aviv 35/2 (2008) 267–282. 102 Dog burials in other parts of Israel, however, seem to indicate some acquaintance and even practice of dogs’ cult by influence of oriental practices. See M. Edrey, “Dog Cult in Persian Period Judea”, A Jew’s Best friend? The Image of the Dog Throughout Jewish History (eds. P. AckermanLieberman – R. Zalashik) (Brighton 2013) 12–35. 103 See J. Schwartz, “Good Dog-Bad Dog: Jews and Their Dogs in Ancient Jewish Society”, A Jew’s Best friend? The Image of the Dog Throughout Jewish History (eds. P. AckermanLieberman – R. Zalashik) (Brighton 2013) 52–89. 104 See Jacobs, “What about the Dog”, 224–225. 105 See G. M. Achenbach, “Iconography of Tobias and the Angel in Florentine Painting of the Renaissance”, Marsyas 3 (1943) 71–86, Regarding the whole of Tobit story, we vividly recommend the view of the tapestries on Tobit Story designed by B. van Orley (between 1491–1541), from “The Winnipeg Art Gallery,” Winnipeg, MB; T. Hart, “Tobit in the Art of the Florentine Renaissance”, Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. R. J. Bredin) (LSTS 55; London 2006) 72–89.

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 91

is not one comprised of other texts alone.”106 In fact, an important hermeneutic contribution comes also from various expressions of art, especially painting, but also music and various forms of literature (like poetry, drama, etc.).107 With respect to Tobit’s impact on painting, it is noteworthy that, the great majority of painters who dealt with Tobit motifs, represented Tobiah’s travel with the angel.108 In most paintings, together with the fish or alone, the famous dog occupies an important place in the canvasses.109 It is rather interesting that, even in scenes where there is no mention of the dog in Tobit, artists could not resist to include it also.110 Furthermore, except in few representations (in which it appears

106 See Hart, “Tobit in the Art of the Florentine Renaissance”, 73. 107 See the multifaceted work of P. Claudel, L’histoire de Tobie et de Sara. Moralité en trois actes (Paris 1942) On line, Helene de Saint Hubert offers a balanced and thorough evaluation of Claudel’s drama, with further bibliography. See http://www.paul-claudel.net/oeuvre/lhistoirede-tobie-et-de-sara.; Regarding Claudel’s work see also J. Cantera Ortiz de Urbina, “Paul Claudel y la Biblia : comentarios en torno a su obra teatral ”L’Histoire de Tobie et de Sara”.” Sefarad 46.1,2 (1986) 89–103; D. Tandecki, “Leidensweg und Erfüllung: Paul Claudels “L’Histoire de Tobie et de Sara””, Paradeigmata 2 (1989) 775–788. 108 See for instance, N. di Bicci (1419–1491), Tobias and the Angel (1473; Museo di Arte Sacra di Tavernelle Val di Pesa, Tuscany); F. Lippi (1457–1504), Gli arcangeli e Tobiolo (1485; Galleria Sabauda, Torino); Tobia e l’angelo (1475–1480 ca.; Washington, DC, National Gallery of Art); A. del Pollaiolo (1431–1498), Tobia e l’angelo (1470 ca.; Galleria Sabauda, Torino); A. del Verrocchio (1436–1488), Tobia e l’angelo (1470/75; London National Gallery); F. Botticini (1446–1497), Arcangelo Raffaele con Tobiolo e un giovane (between 1480–1490; Florence Cathedral, Sacristy); B. d’Antonio (1466–1515), The Archangel Raphael with Tobias (1475/76; Museum of Art of Ponce); P. Perugino, Arcangelo Raffaele con Tobia (1496/1500 ca.; London National Gallery); D. van Alsloot (1570–1626) – H. de Clerck (1560–1630), Landschap met jonge Tobias en engel (17th c.; Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen); P. Lastman (1583–1635), The Angel and Tobias with the fish (1625; Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest); G. G. Savoldo (1480/85 – 1548), Tobias and the Angel (1522/25 ca.; Galleria Borguese, Rome); Tiziano Vecellio (ca. 1488/90 – 1576), Tobias and the Angel (1530; Chiesa di San Marziale, Venice); A. Vaccaro (1604–1670), The Angel and Tobias with the Fish (ca.1640; Museu Nacional d’Art de Catalunya, Barcelona); E. Le Sueur (1616–1655), Tobias and Sarah’s Wedding (ca. 1645; Paris, Private Collection); S. Rosa (1615–1673), Landscape with Tobias and the Angel (1660/73 ca.; National Gallery, London); E. Rosales Galinas (1836–1873), Tobias and the Angel (1858/63; Museo del Prado, Madrid). 109 “Almost all of the pictures painted conformed to a similar pattern, centering upon Tobias, Azarias/Raphael and the dog seemingly journeying through the wilderness en route from Nineveh to Ecbatana.” Hart, “Tobit in the Art of the Florentine Renaissance”, 74. See in that regard also Rembrandt H. van Rijn – G. Dou (1613–1645), The Return of Tobias (Suermondt-LudwigMuseum, Aachen), in which the dog occupies the center of the canvass, as if leaping at blind Tobit’s leg (inside scene) with Hannah knelt down hugging Tobiah with the angel upon a donkey (outside depiction). 110 Besides the paintings mentioned in note 29, see also in that regard Rembrandt H. van Rijn (1606–1669), Tobit and Anna with the Kid (1626; Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) and The Angel

92 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

barking to the fish),111 the dog in most representations is merely an item more in the scene; in some paintings it stands at the side of Tobiah and the Angel on the road (thus walking), sitting or lying on the ground, or even sleeping. Its presence has a special effect of attracting powerfully one’s attention, for its noticeable enrichment of the picturesque feature of the representation.112 Regarding music, although with no explicit mention of the dog, it is still worth mentioning here J. Haydn’s pioneer oratorio, Il ritorno di Tobia (1775/1784).113 Haydn’s considerable contribution to that genre with his two great vocal masterpieces The Creation (1798) and The Seasons (1801) is well known. Less known, however, is that the composer’s pioneer work regarding that genre has its beginnings precisely in the Tobiah Oratory, whose first two beneficent performances on favor of widows and orphans (in 1775) Haydn himself directed. Besides the musical value of the Oratory, G. G. Boccherini’s poetic words in Italian, offers an interesting interpretive contribution to the return story of young Tobiah and the healing of Tobit (while skillfully alluding to essential elements of most chapters).114 Haydn’s oratory devoted to the theme of Tobiah’s return, and therefore indirectly, to the argument of Tobiah’s travel, underscores the idea of the centrality of Tobiah in Tobit’s story and the Departing from the Family of Tobias (1641); P. Lesire (1611- after 1656), Tobias Healing his Father (1640/45 ca.) from the Agnes Atherington Art Center, Kingston ON; B. Strozzi (1581–1644), The Healing of Tobit (1625 ca.; Cleveland Museum of Art); A. del Sarto (1486–1530), Archangel Raphael with Tobias, St. Lawrence and the Donor Leonardo di Lorenzo Morelli (1512; Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna); Tiziano Vecellio (ca. 1488/90 – 1576), Madonna and Child in a Landscape with Tobias and the Angel (1535–40 ca.; Buckingham Palace, London); A. Bloemaert (1566– 1652), Jeune berger montrant Tobie et l’angel (1625/30; Minneapolis Institute of Arts). Regarding Rembrandt’s paintings and sketches on Tobit, see J. S. Held, Rembrandt and the Book of Tobit (Northampton, Mass. 1964); see also C. Tümpel, – P. Schatborn, eds. Het Boek Tobias. Met etsen en tekeningen van Rembrandt en zijn leerlingen (Zeist 1987) 111 See for instance, G. A. Figino (1553–1608), Tobias and the Angel (1475/1480); F. L. Guardi (1712–1793), Tobias while Fishing in the Presence of Archangel Raphael (1752; Chiesa di San Raffaele, Venice). 112 It is remarkable that practically in a hundred percent of the paintings, Raphael is depicted as angel (with its typical pair of wings) and never as the mere human Azariah, which according to the story, is the perception of the characters until the angel’s self-revelation in chapter 12. 113 The work may be found in the Naxos’ Music Library, under the code 8.570300-02. A counterpart work may be seen in that of G. F. Händel, Tobit (NML 8.570113-14). The work however, is a pasticcio oratorio, assembled after Händel’s death (1759) by John Christopher Smith from the late composer’s pre-existing works (performed for the first time maybe in 1764). On the general theme of OT’s influence in music and “exegesis” through music itself, see the interesting contribution of M. Stern, Bible & Music: Influences of the Old Testament on Western Music (Jersey City, N.J. 2011) 114 The Oratory’s lyrics is available online in this address: http://www.naxos.com/sungtext/ PDF/ 8.570300-02_Lyrics.pdf.

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 93

significance of the lad’s enterprise in it. Through Haydn’s music, Boccherini’s inspired lyrics stresses, aware or not of it, the leadership of matured Tobiah at his home return.115 Tobiah’s dog, finally, continues to inspire. At least two recent works of literature have occupied themselves, partially or entirely with Tobiah’s intriguing travel companion.116

Summary Tobiah’s dog is one of Tobit’s narrative items that has polarized particularly commentator’s attention in the course of its interpretive history, not however from the beginning. Ancient views regarding dogs especially in Judaism (apparently negative, although recent archeological discoveries in the land of Israel have challenged at least in part such accepted opinion) help to understand why the dog-mention in Tobit at a certain point began to challenge commentators. The Church Father’s insights in its regard, interesting and edifying as they may appear, are but text-inspired ideas and not text-based interpretations. The dog in fact does not do anything in the story except following Tobiah and becoming during most of the travel story a background character. Such narrative situation relativizes the often contrasting allegorical interpretations of the dog, creative as they may appear (for lack of textual support). Tobit’s commonly accepted composition during Hellenistic times can validate the proposals of Homer’s Odyssey as an inspiring source for Tobiah’s dog. The strongest call of our excursus however is the support it gives to the significance of Tob 6 in Tobit and in it, the centrality of Tobiah via the dog-motif. In that regard, the idea that the dog serves the author to characterize Tobiah as a “hero” seems inspiring. Moreover, the fact that in most canvasses, artists who occupied themselves with Tobit depicted Tobiah’s travel with the angel (mostly Tob 6 but also the travel in its broadest span) and included the dog even in places where, according to the narrative, the dog is not mentioned, support those views. Together with the fish, the dog creates vivacity in the narrative with the consequent increase of interest in it, for the improvement of its picturesque quality. Following Arnald’s intuition, we also sustain that the

115 “Quel figlio a te sì caro / che alfine il Ciel ti rende / al padre, che l’attende / la vista renderà. / Sarà ministro il figlio / dell’opra portentosa / e la sua man pietosa / l’opra compir saprà.” See http://www.naxos.com/sungtext/PDF/8.570300-02_Lyrics.pdf pages 4–5. 116 See C. Bobin, Le très-bas (Collection L’un et l’autre; Paris 1992) 11–18; M. N. Richard, Tobit’s Dog: A Novel (San Francisco 2014).

94 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

presence of the dog in Tob 6, improving the esthetics of the text, is an integrant part of the mnemonic dynamics of the text.117

3.1.3 The Lad and the Angel Move Along Together (v.2b)

Exegesis 3.1.3.1 Text Critical Note on V.2b Verse 2b, as found in GII, is composed by conjunction + two elements (verb of movement (ἐπορεύθησαν) + pronominal adjective ἀμφότεροι).118 The idea that “the two of them moved along” appears incomplete and redundant since that information is already given in v.2a. Verse 6d repeats the same phrase verbatim except for the absence of adverb κοινῶς in v.2b, occurring also later in 11:4 exactly as in v.6d. OL and Q (pariter; ‫ )כחדא‬witness the presence of adverb “together” already in v.2b. In light of that evidence and considering the significance of that phrase for the sense of the text and as intertextual connector as discussed further below, we have reconstructed adverb κοινῶς in our base Greek text for v.2b. Thus, after recounting that Tobiah departed (and consequently was moving along) with the angel and his dog, the narrator emphasizes that the two of them (the lad and the angel) “walked on together.” Furthermore, in its triple occurrence thus (6:2b.6d;11:4), such phrase appears to form purposefully an inclusion. 3.1.3.2 Ἀμφότεροι – κοινῶς In Greek literature, ἀμφότερος occurs mostly in plural form, often with a dual noun, although few cases attest its form in the singular.119 Its meaning is primarily “the two mentioned earlier or implied.’120 In the LXX, in most cases, ἀμφότερος renders Hebrew ‫ שׁניהם‬/ Aramaic ‫תרויהון‬, which clearly signifies only two elements (since related to the word for number “two.” See Gen 2:25; 21:27; Ru

117 Considering the synthetic feature of Tob 6 already anticipated in chapter 2 of this study and in light of the results of the exegesis in this chapter, the reader may better appreciate the sense of that statement. 118 Recalling the three members of the travel “crew” from v.2a (the lad, the angel and the dog), one would spontaneously consider all three as implied subjects of the verb ἐπορεύθησαν in the v.2b. However, the “pronominal adjective of duality,” as Balz-Schneider describes it (see EDNT, 73) ἀμφότεροι (precisely for being dual in number), refrains from such interpretation. 119 See LS, 95. 120 See GELS, 33–34.

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 95

1:5). In GII, ἀμφότερος is used seven times, three of which appear in chapter six (vv.2.6.18). The adjective ἀμφότερος in 6:2b (likewise in v.6d.18d and in 11:4) is used as subject for the purpose of emphasis. Adverb κοινῶς is derived from the adjective κοινός, meaning “common” in the sense of common ownership, of what concerns all or of little value. To it relates to the noun κοινωνός, meaning “companion, partner, partaker, associate.” Within the same word family, we find the important theological neotestamentary concept of κοινωνία (“fellowship, participation, communion”).121 The adverb κοινῶς occurs six times in GII (seven if count 6:2b; 2:2 [καὶ φάγεται κοινῶς μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ]; 6:6d [καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἀμφότεροι κοινῶς]; 8:7 [καὶ συγκαταγηρᾶσαι κοινῶς], 8:13 [καὶ ὑπνοῦντας κοινῶς]; 9:6 [καὶ ὤρθρισαν κοινῶς]; 11:4 [καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἀμφότεροι κοινῶς]). In all of its occurrences, the term conveys the idea of “togetherness.” The adverb thus has in the phrase an adjectival function, serving the narrator to emphasize the manner in which Tobiah and Azariah travelled.

Intertextuality: Tob 6 and Genesis 22 in Dialogue? Premisse: Tobit 6 and the Patriarchal Traditions of Genesis Tobit’s initial annotation in 1:8, on the importance of the family for the transmission of Israelite faith and values, appears programmatic for the sense of the story as a whole. That transmission process is particularly evident in the patriarchal stories that compose our present book of Genesis. Considering the foundational nature of those stories, it is not surprising that, willing to insist in Jewish identity to the vast Diaspora community of his time (resultant of both exile processes), the author would recur particularly to that patrimony. Back in 1893, Abrahams asserted that “everyone has noted the patriarchal character of the book, how the whole story is planned on patriarchal lines. It is needless to quote the coincidences. They are too numerous.” To that, Abrahams later added that, “I am not certain that its full import or extent had been grasped.” His main proposal was that Tobit’s insistence on burial recalled a key element of patriarchal narratives, since “in the book of Genesis there are more references to the duty of burial of the dead than in any other Scriptural book.”122 He also pointed out similarities between Raguel’s welcoming of Tobiah and Raphael in Tob 7 with that of Laban’s

121 See F. Hauck, “κοινός,” TDNT III, 789–809; LS, 969. 122 See I. Abrahams, “Tobit and Genesis”, JQR 5/2 (1893) 348–350, 349. Genesis 23 is all devoted to Abraham’s getting of a burial place for his wife Sarah.

96 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

to Jacob in Gen 29. Commentators in antiquity have already noted Tobit’s connections with Genesis. Emblematic in that regard, is Jerome’s unique expansion in the Vulgate of Tob 6:16–18 (Vg 6:16–22), in which the patriarchs and Abraham in particular are evoked in the context of Azariah’s conversation with Tobiah about his marital night with Sarah.123 Modern authors have repeatedly endorsed those suggestions. Galdos, for instance, pointed out several passages from Genesis that Tobit’s endogamous marriage evoked.124 The relationship between Tobit and Gen 24, has been thoroughly studied by Deselaers, who encountered 33 points of contact between the two stories.125 Ruppert proposed connections between Tobit and Gen 37; 39–50 (“Joseph Story”).126 As Moore nicely summarizes it, “As one reads the book of Tobit, one can ‘see’ the patriarchs (especially Isaac, Jacob and Joseph).”127 The patriarchal stories put emphasis on the family,128 also one of the Tobit’s main teachings.

Tob 6 and Gen 22 The phrase καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἀμφότεροι κοινῶς appears to be a Greek calque of a stock phrase found in the famous account of Gen 22 (in Jewish tradition, the “Aqedat Itshaq”).129 Although in Gen 22 LXX, its wording is slightly different than

123 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 217–220; Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 199–200.225–136. 124 See R. Galdos, Commentarius in librum Tobit (CSS 12/1; Paris 1930) 94–96.202–203. 125 Deselaers, Das Buch Tobit, 292–308; See also Rabenau, Studien, 107–108; More recently, Andre Wenin reassessed that argument. See A. Wénin, “Le Marriage de Tobias et ceux d’Isaac et de Jacob en Genése”, Révéler les oeuvres de Dieu. Lecture narrative du livre de Tobie (éd. E. Di Pede – C. Lichtert – D. Luciani – C. Vialle – A. Wénin) (Le livre et le rouleau 46; Namur – Paris 2014) 168–181. 126 See L. Ruppert, “Das Buch Tobias. Ein Modellfall nachgestaltender Erzählung”, Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch. Beiträge zur Septuaginta. Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler (Hrsg. J. Schreiner) (FzB 1; Würzburg 1972) 109–119. 127 Moore, Tobit, 18; In her 2005 study, Nowell reassesses in a thorough manner those connections. See I. Nowell, “The Book of Tobit: An Ancestral Story”, Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (ed. J. Corley – V. T. M. Skemp) (Washington, D.C. 2005) 3–13. 128 See D. L. Petersen, “Genesis and Family Values”, JBL 124/1 (2005) 5–23. 129 According to Dreifuss, “The Aqedah is the symbol of belief in Judaism.” See G.  Dreifuss, “The Binding of Isaac. Genesis 22 – The Akedah”, JAP 20/1 (1975) 50–56, 54; See also G. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Dallas, TX 1994) 96–118; K. Schmid, “Abraham’s Sacrifice: Gerhard von Rad’s Interpretation of Genesis 22”, Int 62/3 (2008) 268–276; D. Polish, “Akedat Yitzhak – The Binding of Isaac”, Judaism 6/1 (1957) 17–21; H. Moltz, “God and Abraham in the Binding of Isaac”, JSOT 96 (2001) 59–69; I. Kalimi, “‘Go, I Beg You, Take Your Beloved Son and Slay Him!’

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 97

Tobit’s (καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν οἱ δύο ἅμα, 22:6; πορευθέντες δὲ ἀμφότεροι ἅμα, 22:8), the phrase’s exact Semitic background is witnessed by 4Q197 (4 i 11) for Tob 6:6d: ‫אזלין תריה]ו[ן ]כ[חדא‬, Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew ‫וילכו שניהם יחדו‬, as witnessed by the Targumim (Onq. and Neof.) for Gen 22:6.8.130 So the idea of Tob 6:2b, “So they went both of them together,” may be seen also as a means to evoke that specific Genesis tradition (part of the episode’s intertextual dynamics). In biblical tradition, such phrase is unique to Gen 22.131 T. Novick studied in detail the possible connections and their significance for the sense of Tob 6.132 Resemblances at both linguistic and plot level appear to be at play to activate the intertextual links.133 At a linguistic level, not only the above mentioned stock phrase seems used as connecting device, but also the use of the term “lad” (τὸ παιδάριον; Hebrew: ‫ ;נער‬Aramaic ‫ )עלימא‬to refer to the central characters, Isaac and Tobiah (see Gen 22:5.12; Tob 6:4(2x).6.7.11).134 At plot level, the two stories also share important similarities: “an only son is led by a kinsman into a life-threatening situation;” in both cases the potential “victims” carry along certain things that finally had to do directly with them

The Binding of Isaac in Rabbinic Literature and Thought”, RRJ 13/1 (2010) 1–35; R. M. Jensen, “The Offering of Isaac in Jewish and Christian Tradition”, BiblInterp 1/2 (1994) 85–110; J. Kanarek, “He Took the Knife: Biblical Narrative and the Formation of Rabbinic Law”, AJS Review 34/1 (2010) 65–90; G. Miller, “Peril and Deliverance and the Akedah-Sinai Narrative Structure”, JBQ 40/4 (2012) 247–252; Some studies have proposed connections between Gen 22 and motifs/ characters of Greek literature. See P. Millett, “Isaac and Iphigeneia”, EJ 40/2 (2007) 116–131; M. Sugar, “Commonalities Between the Isaac and Oedipus Myths: A Speculation”, JAAP 30/4 (2002) 691–706; K. J. Kaplan, “Isaac and Oedipus: A Re-Examination of the Father-Son Relationship”, Judaism 39/1 (1990) 73–81; K. J. Kaplan, “Isaac Versus Oedipus: An Alternative View”, JAAP 30/4 (2002) 707–717; Z. Fischer, “Sacrificing Isaac: A New Interpretation”, JBQ 35/3 (2007) 173–178. 130 See in that regard C. E. Morrison, “Il cuore perfetto (‫ )לבה שלימה‬di Abramo nella letteratura targumica e cristiana antica”. Abramo tra storia e fede. XLII Settimana Biblica Nazionale (Roma, 10–14 Settembre 2012) (ed. A. Passaro – A. Pitta) (RSB 1–2; Bologna 2014) pp. 431–452. 131 The components of that stock phrase is found once more in question format in Am 3:3 (MT). Its sense and function there, however, appears clearly different from the one both Gen 22 and Tob 6 and 11 would share, even if the Amos text may shed some light for the sense of the phrase in Gen and in Tobit. 132 See T. Novick, “Biblicized Narrative: On Tobit and Genesis 22”, JBL 126/4 (2007) 755–764; “Tobiah’s expedition to Ecbatana in Tobit 6 shares certain basic plot elements with Isaac’s journey in Genesis 22.” See T. Novick, “Liturgy and the first person in narratives of the Second Temple period”, Prooftexts 32/3 (2012) 269–291, 755. 133 In his article, Novick discusses briefly but substantially the problems connected to intertextuality. See Novick, “Biblicized Narrative”, 761–763. 134 See Novick, “Biblicized Narrative”, 759–760.

98 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

(Isaac, the wood; Tobiah, the fish-organs); as travel moves on, they question about it (Isaac questions Abraham about the victim for the sacrifice; Tobiah the angel about the strange items he is instructed to spare).135 Novick’s main proposal is that the stock phrase of Gen 22:6.8 repeated in Tob 6:2b.6d (and 11:4) serves as a means of summarizing that Genesis tradition with which Tob 6 evokes. Tobit’s links with the patriarchal traditions of Genesis (besides Gen 22, he also recognizes the book’s connections with Gen 24 and 29),136 is a feature shared by Tobit with other second Temple narratives. The intertextual connections in these late writings, results in “biblicized narratives,” whose main scope, in his view, would be authority or “canonicity.”137 Moreover, Tobit’s links with Genesis traditions would serve also as background for a deeper grasping of the sense of the travel story.

Commentary V.2b seems stated by the narrator to convey a specific idea about Tobiah in relation to Azariah-Raphael as the travel begins. Having highlighted in v.2a the episode’s characters (lad, angel and dog) and their circumstances (road traveling abroad), the narrator now recounts that two of them, meaning Tobiah and the angel, moved along together, “at same pace,” meaning in an ambience of trust and friendship. Azariah- Raphael has been hired by Tobit to accompany his son (συνελθεῖν; recall 5:10) in his travel to the East. Considering Tobiah’s unawareness of the roads to Media (5:2), Azariah’s role at level of the story, appears to be, that of a “travel guide,” for whose effectiveness appears indispensable Tobiah’s full commitment. Tobiah’s commitment to the angel manifests itself in his prompt response to his instructions right after. Such guidance however as the episode will reveal, signifies much more than its locative purpose. The angel’s guidance in fact assumes the contours of a “paideia.”138 The angel will not only work for Tobiah’s acceptance of marriage with Sarah, but prepare him for that moment, which will signify, in light of 1:9 Tobiah’s reaching of manhood. As we will advocate in our study, Raphael’s guidance of Tobiah will

135 See Novick, “Biblicized Narrative”, 756. 136 See Novick, “Biblicized Narrative”, 756.761. 137 See Novick, “Biblicized Narrative”, 763–764. 138 On the theme of ancient Jewish pedagogy, see the interesting study of J. L. Kugel, “Ancient Israelite Pedagogy and Its Survival in Second Temple Interpretations of Scripture”, Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Ed. K.M.Hogan – M. Goff – E. Wasserman) (EJL 41; Atlanta, GA 2017) 15–58.

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 99

signify for him in effect a process of education towards his maturation as character, necessary for his leading role in the rest of the story. Conveyed through such specific a phrase, v.2b evokes and connects Tob 6 with Gen 22, emphasizing the ambiance of commitment established between Tobiah and the angel from the very beginning of his travel, as between Abraham and Isaac in theirs. Strengthened also through other key elements (stock-phrase, narrative articulation, themes), such links guide the reader towards a deeper understanding of the episode that begins to be disclosed before his eyes,139 setting up a specific narrative background for that purpose. That narrative interpretive background will be further enriched with other interlinks as the episode moves on, serving to enlighten the sense of various productive components of Tob 6. Furthermore, as in the Genesis account, the theme of obedience is also at stake in various manners regarding Tobiah and also the angel (see 12:18). Such inner disposition will reveal itself particularly important for the proper development of the divine orchestrated plan Raphael will work to bring about, which implies Tobiah’s free acceptance of marriage with Sarah and with it her liberation from the demon. Such narrative dynamics is part of the process through which the narrator will produce Tobiah’s important characterological improvement and that our study aims to demonstrate.

3.1.4 Night Befalls the Travelers (v.2c) 3.1.4.1 Τυγχάνω Translator/editor of GII employs a very peculiar verb in v.2c (τυγχάνω). Although well attested in classical Greek,140 τυγχάνω has a limited use in the LXX, such so that as Bauernfeind puts it, it “does not fit in easily with any Hebrew original.”141 The verb is used once more in GII in 5:14. Verb τυγχάνω is described as having two specific senses.142 Used transitively, it means “to attain what one desires, to reach, to obtain.” Its basic idea is that of hitting a target, with an element of good fortune as well as skill. It may also signify “to do the right thing.”143 Used intransitively, τυγχάνω acquires the sense of “to happen, to befall,” keeping its aspect of chance. Reconstructing the word “night” in the gap of an Aramaic 139 See Novick, “Biblicized Narrative”, 761; See also Dimant, “Use and Interpretation of Mikra”, 401. 140 See LS, 1832. 141 See O. Bauernfeind, “τυγχάνω,” TDNT, VIII, 238–45, 1192. 142 See GELS, 689. 143 Bauernfeind, “τυγχάνω,” 1192.

100 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

fragment related to v.2 (4Q197 4 i 5: [‫ )וסרד להון ]לליה‬Fitzmyer interpreted verb ‫ סדר‬in relation to Akkadian sadāru as meaning “occur regularly, follow regularly upon.144 Whereas in Hebrew OT, verb ‫ סדר‬has no occurrence,145 in Aramaic, it is well attested. However, its basic meaning is “to arrange, to set up, to order.”146 The difficulty with Fitzmyer’s proposal therefore would be that there is no other textual evidence from the Aramaic Corpus for his proposed meaning for ‫סדר‬. Beyer instead, reconstructs the phrase ‫ וסדר להון ]מלאכא משרי על נה[ר דקלת‬in the gap of 4Q197,147 rendering it, “Und {der Engel} rüstete ihnen {ein Nachtlager am Fluß} Tigris.” Although preserving the attested meaning of ‫סדר‬, his proposal appears to us problematic at a narrative level. To have the angel as the subject of verb ‫סדר‬, who is then affirmed to have set up a ‫( משרי‬a “Nachtlager” i.e. “place to sleep [for the night]”),148 sounds rather awkward considering the author’s characterization of Raphael in the story. Moreover his proposal finds no textual support from any of the available witnesses. Considering the sense of τυγχάνω presented above and its contrasting feature with respect to its plausible Semitic background as witnessed by 4Q197 (‫)סדר‬, we have to sustain that the oldest form of the reading may not be attainable. In lack of evidence from GI but with the support of OL translation (comprehendit, “overtook”) we interpret τυγχάνω simply with the sense of “befall, come upon.”

Commentary Having moved along together presumably during several hours already, Tobiah, the angel and the dog, by the end of a first day journey still find themselves somewhere by the Tigris river as night surprises them. In that regard, we may notice that with few words (narrating time) the narrator recounts a long span of time (narrated time) regarding which he only referred Tobiah’s “rhythm” (outer but above all inner) at side of God’s angel. Considering the narrator’s scarce references of time in the episode,149 his mention of the “first night” may have a 144 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 204. 145 The noun related form to that root occurs once in Job 10:22. As a verb, ‫ סדר‬occurs twice in the Hebrew Sir 10:1; 50:14. 146 See BDB, 690; HALOT, 744; HATIS, 288; C. Stadel, “‫סדר‬,” ThWQ, II, 1068–1070. 147 See Beyer, ATTM II , 179. 148 See M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York 1950) II, 858. 149 Coordinates of time are in fact relatively scarce in Tobit (even though the book presents itself as a historical novel). The occurring ones are mostly generic, with some exceptions. Although some may have a function at level of the plot (like Tobiah’s delay in Ecbatana, whose fourteen

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 101

particular significance. The numeral “first” puts the question about the duration of Tobiah’s travel. If we answer it with the other two references of place, the duration of the travel would amount hypothetically merely three days, significantly unrealistic considering its distance on a real basis. During the road conversation, after the third geographical reference, Raphael will urge Tobiah regarding the peculiar matter of his marriage with Sarah repeatedly referring to “this night” (τὴν νύκτα ταύτην; see 6:11.13(2x).14.16). Such temporal reference presumably refers to another travel day. Would that refer to a second, third or other? As it appears, the question finally is to remain unanswered, a matter of pure speculation, since after the initial annotation, the narrator says nothing explicitly in regard. Considering the narrator’s insistence on the term “night,” his interest may be in emphasizing that specific motif. The numeral “first” in v.2c then, if part of the Semitic original, together with the element “night” may be used with a rhetorical purpose. Considering that Tobiah’s encounter with the fish, an event that has such a great impact in Tobit from several points of view, takes place in the evening of that “first” travel day, the use of the numeral may be intended to emphasize its significance. Through the “night-motif,” the narrator introduces in the episode an important element for the sense of Tobit story in general and of Tob 6 in particular. According to Nowell, Tobit “is built on a basic opposition between life and death which is symbolized in several ways.”150 One of them is the book’s play with the motifs of light and darkness. “While the term ‘day’ predominates in the first and last sections of the book, the term ‘night’ is reserved for the middle section (6:2–8:18).”151 From that observation she remarks that, Tobiah travels from “day to night” and then back to “day,” parallels that of his father Tobit, from light to darkness than back to light.152 A nocturnal atmosphere normally evokes the tenebrous and mysterious in a narrative. “Night” naturally

days of marriage feast (see 10:7) which triggers the important scene of 10:1–7) most of them appear to have a rhetorical value. For example, Tobit’s reference to his childhood in 1:4, seems to serve activating the fictive nature of the account. See Engel, “Auf zuverlässigen Wegen”, 84; The age Tobit became blind and the duration of his blindness (14:2) seems to highlight the intensity of his drama. Tobit and Tobiah’s death age (see 14:1.14) seem to serve evoking that of venerable figures of the OT (see Gen 47:28; 50:22; Josh 24:29). Fitzmyer, Tobit, 318–319. 150 See Nowell, Narrative Technique and Theology, 201–220; See also B. Ego, “«Das Licht Gottes»: Metaphern in der Tobiterzählung”, The Metaphorical Use of Language in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ed. M. Witte – S. Behnke) (DCLY 2014/2015; Berlin – New York (NY) 2015) 59–73. 151 See Nowell, Narrative Technique and Theology, 201.205–206. Worthy of notice, Tobit’s blindness process occurs also at night (see Tob 2:9). 152 See Nowell, Narrative Technique and Theology, 205.

102 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

stirs up fear, evokes the idea of danger and the unknown, often announces macabre outcomes. Night in effect is a time for demons, for magic, for dreams and revelations.153 In Tobit, night in fact, was the moment in which the evil demon Asmodeus used to kill Sarah’s suitors (see Tob 6:14). Tobiah will also face the demon at night (see 8:1–9). Important moments of biblical traditions have night as their setting, as for instance Gen 15 (covenant with Abraham), Gen 28:10–22 (Jacob’s Ladder)154 or the Exod 12 (Passover Institution). The fish incident, takes place also at night. The “nocturnal” element of Tob 6, finally, seems part of the narrator’s characterization of Tobiah’s travel with a “liminal” aspect, turning it into some sort of a “rite of passage.” Furthermore, such characterization substantiates our idea, mentioned in the previous chapter, of the “stylized” feature of Tob 6.

3.1.5 Staying Overnight by the Tigris River (v.2d) 3.1.5.1 Sense of the Preposition ἐπί The sentence καὶ ηὐλίσθησαν ἐπὶ τοῦ Τίγριδος ποταμοῦ is one of the geographical references in Tobit that has led commentators to question the author’s real acquaintance with the geography of the area in which he set his tale.155 The basic objection regarding v.2d is that it sounds rather awkward to have the travel crew sojourning by the Tigris river, while moving eastwards, since ancient Nineveh was already located at the east bank of the Tigris.156 Preposition ἐπί + genitive, referring to space, conveys the idea of “closeness,” thus “close by.” That seems to be the meaning of that preposition in v.2d. In that light, the narrative description of v.2d simply implies that by the end of a first day journey, Tobiah, the angel and the dog, are still by the vicinities of the Tigris river. That information is plausible as such and per se does not qualify or disqualify the author, as far as his knowledge of Mesopotamian geography is concerned. Considering that the

153 See G. Delling, “νύξ,” TDNT IV, 1123–26; A. Stiglmair, “‫לילה‬,” TDOT VII, 533–543; R. P. Bonfiglio, “‫לילה‬,” ThWQ II, 514–520. 154 According to Fokkelman, through his nocturnal confrontations, Jacob is brought to a notable development as character. See J. P. Fokkelman, “Jacob as a Character”, Analyse Narrative et Bible. Deuxième Colloque International du RRENAB, Louvain-la-Neuve, Avril 2004 (éd. C. Focante – A. Wénin) (Leuven 2005) 3–17, 13–14. 155 See Moore, Tobit, 198; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 204–205. 156 See for instance Moore, Tobit, 198; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 205; T. B. Dozeman, “Geography and History in Herodotus and in Ezra-Nehemiah”, JBL 122/3 (2003) 449–466, See also in that regard,

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 103

one leading the travel is Azariah-Raphael, for knowing the ways to Media (recall 5:2.5–7) the narrator may be procuring also some amusement to the informed reader and /or to emphasize the purposefulness of Tobiah’s angelic guide apparently strange chosen route. 3.1.5.2 Note on the Geography of the Travel It is rather peculiar at first glance that by the end of a whole travel day, Tobiah and his “crew,” are still found somewhere by the Tigris river, considering that ancient Nineveh was located at the eastern side of that river.157 Moreover, as noted in chapter 2, that and the other two geographical annotations that follow, could at first glance suggest that the author had in mind a three-days travel from Nineveh to Ecbatana in Tob 6 as some commentator proposed.158 Thus, Tob 6’s strange spatial and temporal remarks led commentators to sustain the author’s poor acquaintance with Mesopotamian geography.159 Such narrative situation in Tob 6 as well in other parts of the story, is susceptible also of other explanations.160 Stating that they stayed overnight by the Tigris river at the end of a first day journey, the text simply suggests that they were walking along the Tigris (thus southwards) for a while in their moving to Rages of Media (eastwards direction), their intended initial destination. In fact, movement towards the East would imply not only moving along the Tigris itself or some of its affluent (like the Upper or Lower Zab) for a while, but even some water crossing (about which however Tobit states nothing).161 Among the ancient trade routes to the East known to us, at least one, having the important city of Ecbatana as its destination, would go via Arbela (modern Arbil in northern Iraq), Arrapkha (modern Kirkuk northeast Iraq) and Eshnunna (modern Tell Asmar), all of them implying 157 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 204–205; See C. C. Torrey, “‘Nineveh’ in the Book of Tobit”, JBL 41 (1922) 237–245. 158 See Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 125. 159 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 205; Moore, Tobit, 198. 160 Zsengellér for instance proposed a theological interpretation for Tobit’s geographical notations. See J. Zsengellér, “Topography as Theology: Theological Premises of the Geographical References in the Book of Tobit”, The Book of Tobit – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 177–188; Vílchez Líndez proposed interpreting the travel account as a sort of travel “diary,” in which is recorded the events of only three days of that lengthy travel (whatever its duration was in the narrator’s mind). See Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 123; Harrington spoke of a journey in “three stages.” See D. J. Harrington, Invitation to the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids MI 1999) 18–19. 161 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 204–205; Priero, Tobia, 99.

104 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

a movement southwards with the Tigris at Occident. Only at Eshnunna, travelers would divert towards the Eastern destination.162 The author could have had in mind that or some other known-to-him trade route as itinerary model while construing his story. However, the coordinate “space” in Tob 6 together with that of “time” does not seem to be the narrator’s main concern.163 Although keeping its ambience of a historical novel or romance, Tobit finally is a sapiential or instructive writing. In our view, the three geographical notations of Tob 6 serve above all the rhetorical purpose of creating suspense towards Ecbatana (the final destination of Tobiah’s travel) and the events that are little by little designed to take place there regarding both Tobiah and Sarah. The narrator is not interested in giving a detailed account of a realistic or imaginary travel, but he uses the motif of travel as a literary expedient in function of his narrative project. In that respect, also the narrator’s mention of a “first night” serves an important rhetorical function, as discussion later. Noteworthy, the book’s references to Nineveh and Ecbatana, beginning from chapter 3 (which parallels Tobit’s distressful situation with that of Sarah, respectively in Nineveh and Ecbatana) place the travel story right in the middle, considering plot development. Thus at level of the discourse, a sequence in chiastic form Nineveh – Ecbatana / Ecbatana – Nineveh (chapters 3 – 11), with the theme of distress/alleviation as connectors, place the travel story in between. Table 3.2 below represents graphically our view:

162 See A. Curtis, ed. Oxford Bible Atlas (Oxford  – New York 2007) 99–101; See also in that regard, Galdos, Tobit, 73–80.348–349. 163 Such feature is noticeable also in other parts of the book. Tobit-narrator dedicates nine verses (2:1–9) to recount what happened in the day of the feast of Pentecost when he became blind. He then summarizes in a sort of “flash-forward” the situation he lived during the four years in one sentence (2:10c) and in another the help he received from Ahiqar during two years (2:10d). Next Tobit recounts his harsh argument with his wife Hannah that took place in a certain day of the month of “Dystrus” (roughly February/March of our calendar) in one of those four years of his blindness (see 2:11 – 3:6). Still regarding “that same day” the narrator recounts Sarah’s troubles (3:7–15), Tobit delivers his instructions to Tobiah (Tob 4; “On that day Tobit recalled,” 4:1) and the whole travel arrangement is made (see 5:1). Therefore, regarding one single day (narrated time) the narrator employs practically four chapters and one full chapter for the preparation of the travel, that lasted perhaps merely couple hours.The disproportion between narrating and narrated time is remarkable.

3.1 The Narrative Introduction (Tob 6:2) 

 105

Table 3.2: Nineveh/Ecbatana in Tob 3–11. Tobit’s distresses in Nineveh (1:3 – 3:6)

Sarah’s distress in Ecbatana (3:7–15)

Travel Story of Tobit 6 Sarah’s alleviation in Ecbatana (7–10)

Tobit’s alleviation in Nineveh (11)

Commentary Hours have passed without mention; several miles have already been travelled. A new information is then announced (v.2c): night befalls the travelers. A halt becomes necessary. Within only a few words a whole journey day is made to pass and before the reader fancies to give any thought of the situation, the narrator informs about it: Tobiah and his company are staying overnight by the Tigris river (v.2d). The reference the narrator gives now, marks a change of place in the episode. While the initial sentence (v.2a) had Nineveh as reference point164; and the generic idea of the “road” is implied in v.2b; the Tigris river is now mentioned explicitly by the narrator. Such mention appears important for the narrator, since he will repeat it verbatim in 6:3. Besides its two occurrences in Tobit, the Tigris river occurs in our present OT only once more en passant in Gen 2:14,165 where Genesis’ narrator merely informs of location, as “the one that flows east of Ashur” and as part of the four rivers that watered Paradise. From that same river young Tobiah will try getting some refreshment after his long first day travel walk (v.3a). Conjoined with the time coordinate given in the previous verse (night), the Tigris river completes the sinister setting in which Tobiah now finds himself. Although the idea of staying overnight by a river’s bank per se may suggest an adventurous scenario (for all that that narrative description could potentially imply), its mention in the episode is brief enough to polarize the reader’s imagination to it. As the episode’s next moment underscores, the two last phrases of v.2, serve the narrator to set the stage for the scene that follows regarding the fish. Considering that the fish- incident plays such a decisive role at plot level, and at level of the story: the strange travel route the angel has guided Tobiah through was part of a divine orchestrated plan. Azariah-Raphael has been leading the route so that, by the end of a first day travel, Tobiah would find himself still near the waters of the Tigris and by night. The reader soon discovers why.

164 Although not explicit, the reference is implied in the sentence’s initial verb ἐξῆλθεν, which requires a referral for its sense. 165 With other two later occurrences in Sir 24:25 and Jdt 1:6.

106 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

3.1.6 Syntax of 6:2 Modern commentators, in its majority, interpret the initial “καί” of v.2c with a temporal sense. Thus Moore and Fitzmyer for example, connect the two sequences (vv.2bc) with the conjunction “until” making them dependent on one another grammatically and logically.166 That rendering appears based in the construction of v.6d (καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἀμφότεροι κοινῶς ἕως), which mirrors v.2b and in the acceptance of Fitzmyer’s reconstruction of the last letter after the gap in 4Q197 as a daleth (and thus forming the preposition ‫עד‬, “until”).167 Ego and SchüngelStraumann, on the contrary, give a more literal rendering of verse 2, keeping the basic meaning of the conjunction καί in their translation.168 In the same manner, OL translation in its best witness (L1 in WGS), mirroring each conjunctive καί of v.2 with an “et.”169 Considered more carefully, Tob 6:2 itself in its four sequences seems to solve the problem. As regarding the book’s incipit (Tob 1:1–2), we are surprised of the author’s skillfulness when applying to the text the famous Latin dictum, popularized in the Middle Ages for topical invention: quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando (who, what, where, by what means, why, how and when). In fact, an interesting picture comes to surface limpidly.170 The questions “who” and “what” (quis-quid) are answered by v.2a (the lad, the angel and the dog; travel). The reason for that travel (cur), although not stated, is implicit and the reader is fully aware of it (family money recovery). The coordinates “by what means” (quibus auxiliis) is answered (maybe partially) through the manner the narrator refer Tobiah’s main travel companion in v.2a (the angel). The dog seems also to complete that answer (although as stated before at level of story it does not perform any ulterior role). The question about “how” (quomodo) may be seen answered partly by v.2a but also by v.2b (they travel by foot; they move along together, with the sense mentioned before). While all those coordinates

166 See Moore, Tobit, 195; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 200; Similarly, Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 124; Virgulin, Tobia, 87. 167 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 204; Beyer on the contrary reads that letter as a resh and thus reconstructs the word “river” before the name ‫( דקלת‬Tigris). See Beyer, ATTM II , 178. 168 See Ego, Buch Tobit, 960; Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 114. Noteworthy, Schüngel- Straumann makes the travel account to begin in v.2b (that she numbers v.1b), without explaining the reasons for the omission of the content of v.2a. 169 Regarding that point the only available witness for comparison seems in fact OL, considering that GI paraphrases the verse and Qumran text is too lacunose. See WGS, 178. 170 See D. Kelly, The Conspiracy of Allusion. Description, Rewriting, and Authorship from Macrobius to Medieval Romance (Leiden – Boston – Köln 1999) 101; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 91.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 107

are neatly related, the next two (where [ubi]; when [quando]), clearly answered through vv.2cd, although certainly in relation to the other members of the verse, appear out of tune. In effect, the answer regarding the “where” and the “when” of the first two sequences (vv.2ab), may be made explicit through the answers “the road” and “during the day.” Therefore, the halt that vv.2cd mark to the narrative flow, may be seen as the “exposition” of the fish-incident. The referred subjects of the pronoun αὐτοῖς of v.2c and the main verb of v.2d (ηὐλίσθησαν), are clearly those stated in v.2a. Nevertheless, vv.2ab may be seen as the introductory sentences of the travel account as such and thus its “exposition.” Through them the narrator is interested above all in highlighting the (main) characters involved in the episode, letting the reader fill the gap regarding the other coordinates. Furthermore, through v.2b, besides serving to advance the narrative, the narrator seems mentioning it to highlight Tobiah’s commitment to his travel companion (made explicit in the following scene) and through its wording, evoking through a sort of summary statement of that story, the famous account of Gen 22. That story is set thus, as part of the background.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 3.2.1 Structure of Tob 6:3–6c As stated before, the verbatim repetition of the stock phrase of v.2b in v.6d creates a frame within which the fish scene is narrated. That repetition is not merely structural, but also rhetorical. Verses 3 (“complication”) and 6c (“final situation”), serve also as introduction and conclusion of the scene respectively. Regarding the external disposition of vv.3–6c,171 we notice an almost symmetrical structure in ABB’A’ pattern (chiasmus), caused by the repetition of the verbal motif of eating, in a contrastive manner. Member A (v.3), presents Tobiah going down to the river and the fish trying to eat up his foot, while member A’ (v.6bc), recounts Tobiah cooking and eating it instead. Members B and B’ refer to Tobiah’s first interaction with the angel (vv.4–6a), shaped in command-execution format. In effect, Raphael’s twofold instructions to Tobiah regarding the fish are executed with outstanding promptness and exactness (underscored through the verbatim repetition of the angel’s words by the narrator). The following diagram represents the structural situation of Tob 6:3–6d:

171 Regarding compositional structures in narratives see Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 93–140, especially, 98–102.112.135.

108 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Table 3.3: Structure of Tob 6:3-6d (I). A: Eating-Motif (καταπιεῖν) [v.3] B: Raphael’s Command – Tobiah’s Execution (first sequence) [v.4] B’ Raphael’s Command – Tobiah’s Execution (second sequence) [vv.5–6a] A’: Eating-Motif (ἔφαγεν) [v.6b]

The pericope is also neatly tight internally through the repetition of the term “fish,” which occurs in it six times (a good example of Leitwortstil in Tob).172 In all of its occurrences, the term implies young Tobiah in his interaction with the fish, referred by either the narrator (4x) or the angel (2x). In its first occurrence, the narrator recounts the fish’s leaping up in v.3b and has its counterpart and last mention in his statement of v.6b, which by means of an inclusion mark the beginning and end of the scene. The narrator then repeats the term another four times in pairs, in Raphael’s commands to Tobiah (vv.4a.5a) and his report of Tobiah’s fulfillment of them (vv.4b.5b). Table 3.4 below, summarizes that textual situation also detected in Tob 6:3–6: Table 3.4: Structure of Tob 6:3–6. ἰχθʋ́ς (v.3b)[Narrator] v.4a

ἰχθʋ́ος [Actor](command)

ἰχθʋ́ος [Narrator](execution)

v.4b

v.5a

ἰχθὺν [Actor](command)

ἰχθὺν [Narrator](execution)

v.6a

ἰχθʋ́ος (v.6b)[Narrator]

Both external and internal compositional devices have not only a structuring function but also a rhetoric one. While the external structure makes the angel’s interaction with Tobiah stand out, concentrating the reader’s attention in it, its internal disposition around the Leitwort “fish,” insists in its importance for the whole story, for the reasons the narrator soon reveals him. The fact that the section begins and ends with a reference to eating in relation to the fish, seems to suggest that for the narrator that connection has a significance for the sense of the incident in its double level, literal and symbolic (discussed further below).

172 See Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 84.120; According to Fokkelman, Gen 32, for example, is an outstanding example of that technique in Genesis. See Fokkelman, “Jacob as a Character”, 9.14.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 109

3.2.2 Tobiah Faces the Big Fish (v.3)

Exegesis 3.2.2.1 Structure of V.3 Formally considered as GII transmits it, v.3 also discloses an elaborated structure. Recounting the reader, the emergence of the fish, the verse by its very structure (now in ABA’ pattern) underlines its significance, as Table 3.5 below shows graphically: Table 3.5: Structure of Tob 6:3. καὶ κατέβη τὸ παιδίον [A] περινίψασθαι τοὺς πόδας [B] εἰς τὸν Τίγριν ποταμόν [C] καὶ ἀναπηδήσας ἰχθὺς μέγας [D] ἐκ τοʋ˜ ὕδατος [C’] ἐβοʋ́λετο καταπιεῖν τὸν πόδα [B’] τοʋ˜ παιδαρίοʋ καὶ ἔκραξεν [A’]

An initial and a concluding verbal action (going down/crying) together with the repetition of the term “lad” brackets the ABA’ structure in a chiastic form (A and A’).173 Members B and B’ are paralleled through the term “feet,” preceded by a verbal action (wash/swallow, transmitted with an infinitive of purpose). Moving towards the centre, the terms ποταμόν and ὕδατος in segments C and C’, are paralleled through the motif “water.” Although not always the case, but in our text the verse’s important information is found in the centre, highlighting the phrase of the big fish leaping up. Whether or not that structure would also be possible to detect in the Semitic “original,” due to lack of textual evidence, it is difficult to assert with certainty. Noteworthy, the various elements in the period are referred again by coordination simpliciter (through its sequence of καί sentences). Besides reflecting significantly its Semitic Vorlage,174 that literary feature also causes a narrative pace speed up towards the centre of the segment (Tobiah first interaction with Raphael). Through its concentric composition, v.3 flashes out to the reader the importance of the fish-motif. However, v.3 173 ABBA pattern, where member “A” presents a verbal action and term “B,” the repeated term “lad.” 174 In this case in relation to the waw copulativum. See GQA, §81; GK, §154.

110 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

is actually only a bridge, through an almost paratactic redaction, which leads the reader’s attention, finally, to the core of the passage (Tobiah’s interaction with the angel).

3.2.3 Tobiah Descends to the Waters of the Tigris (v.3a) 3.2.3.1 Καταβαίνω Initial καί connects grammatically the sequence immediately to v.2d (camping by the Tigris river) but logically also to v.2 as a whole. Its explicit subject, repeating that of 6:2a, stresses that link. Two aorist build the narrative sequence, the first (indicative) marking a punctual action and the second (infinitive) explicating its purpose. In most of its occurrences in the LXX, verb καταβαίνω,175 “to go down, to descend,” is followed by some complement of place, mostly indicating direction from or towards.176 Therefore, in our phrase it would govern the final prepositional phrase. The distance of the complement of place from verb καταβαίνω, helps to construe the structure highlighted before. Furthermore, that grammatical separation seems to serve highlighting the complement object of the infinitive (τοὺς πόδας) for some purpose. 3.2.3.2 Περινίπτω While verb νίπτω is well attested in classical Greek, with some occurrences in the LXX as well, meaning “to wash, purge part of a person (often hand or feet),”177 verb περινίπτω here is a hapax of the LXX, with no attestation in classical Greek (it emerges therefore as a neologism, as Lust noted).178 Among the old versions, GI alone omits the complement accusative of verb περινίπτω and uses the rare verb περικλύζω (“to wash all around”179 used in the LXX only once more in Jdt 10:3) thus describing Tobiah going down to bathe himself in the river (and not merely his feet), most likely having in mind Jonah’s story (see discussion further below).

175 Rendering mostly Hebrew ‫ירד‬, and in the passages in which it is used, the Targum reads Aramaic ‫נחת‬, which is attested in the remnant of Tob 6:3a in 4Q197. See WGS, 172; HATIS, 62. 176 See for example Gen 12:10; Judg 14:1; Ru 3:6; 1Sam 23:25; 24:8; 1Kgs 20:16; Jonah 1:3.5. 177 See LS, 1175 178 See LEH, 485. For his definition of neologism, see LEH, XIV and XXIV. 179 See LS, 1377

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 111

3.2.4 The Big Fish Tries Swallowing Tobiah’s Foot (v.3b) 3.2.4.1 Ἀναπηδάω Verb πηδάω (“to leap, to jump, to beat [of the heart or pulse]”) is well attested in classical Greek, with a pair of occurrences also in the LXX.180 In its derived form ἀναπηδάω, however, although with an equivalent meaning, is of little use both in classical and LXX Greek. Extra its three occurrences in Tobit,181 it is used only three times more in the LXX.182 Considering that Greek verbal stem of πηδάω/ ἀναπηδάω suggests a denominative formation,183 the translator’s choice seems intended for word play.184 The participial use of ἀναπηδάω in Tob 6:3b suggests a certain concomitance of the fish’s leaping up with Tobiah’s bathing of his feet. 3.2.4.2 Sense of Adjective μέγας The fish receives the qualification of “big, large,” certainly referring to its body size. Such qualification appears to functions as an intensifier of the scene’s drama. The adjective μέγας may also signify “great” in degree, intensity or importance. In that sense, μέγας in v.3b could also be seen forecasting a nuance of “power, might,” in the sense of “preeminence or prominence” regarding the emerging creature, considering its importance at plot level. The rendering of the adjective as “enormous” by some commentators,185 considering the narrative sequence (Tobiah being able to catch and drag it out of the waters alone), appears in our view, a bit overtoned.

180 See Lev 11:21 (MT: ‫ ;)נתר‬Song 2:8 (MT: ‫ ;)דלג‬LS, 1400. 181 The exact same form of v.3b (aorist participle) is found previously in Tob 2:4, to describe Tobit’s promptness to a work of mercy (burial to an abandoned corpse). The verb occurs twice more in Tobit, in 7:6 and 9:6, describing Raguel’s promptness in greeting Tobiah at the revelation of his being Tobit’s son and Tobiah’s promptness in greeting Gabael at his arrival for the wedding feast, respectively. 182 See 1 Sam 20:34 (MT: ‫ ;)קום‬Est 5:1 (LXX). 183 See Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, II, 1184–1185. 184 Not possible in either Hebrew or Aramaic here, since the context would have demanded a different verbal form. Although a denominative from ‫ רגל‬is attested, its meaning in both Hebrew and Aramaic is “to bow down low” but also “to slander or to spy out,” with the significate “to tread” apparently only in Syriac. 185 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 205; The same English rendering of the Aramaic adjective ‫ רב‬is given by Cathcart-Gordon for Jonah 2:1. See R. P. Gordon, – K. J. Cathcart, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (The Aramaic Bible 14; Edinburgh 1989) 107.

112 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

3.2.4.3 Καταπίνω Furthermore, the initial participle of v.3b is complemented by a clause with imperfect + infinitive of purpose (ἐβούλετο καταπιεῖν). Thus Tobiah’s purpose (of washing his feet) is grammatically paralleled with the fish’s (according to the narrator). While the initial participle also serves to describe the repeated intent of the fish, the infinitive clause with imperfect used as it appears with a conative sense,186 anticipates its unfulfilled result; due to the grammatical parallelism (through the infinitives of purpose), as it appears also of Tobiah’s intent. Greek καταπίνω, “to swallow down, gulp,”187 translates consistently in the LXX Hebrew/Aramaic ‫בלע‬.188 Remains of 4Q197 supports it as Semitic background of καταπιεῖν,189 whose use in v.3b appears however exaggerated (rhetorically, an “amplification”190). 3.2.4.4 Tοὺς πόδας/τὸν πόδα Although the narrator stated that Tobiah went down to wash his “feet” (τοὺς πόδας), the object of the infinitive καταπιεῖν is conveyed in singular (τὸν πόδα).191 Although restating the object of infinitive περινίψασθαι in v.3a (thus strengthening the parallelism of the phrases), the change of number in v.3b could be interpreted as a means to suggest the reasonable size of the fish that Tobiah faces and conquers (alone). Some witnesses, as noted before, omit completely the mention of the feet. Such omission changes significantly the narrative description and sense of the scene (since the fish then emerges as trying to devour the lad entirely). Interestingly thus, the sense of the fish incident is neatly connected with idea of the feet-washing. Moore suggested interpreting the singular “foot” in v.3b as a euphemism for the private parts. As it is known, in several occasions in the Hebrew Bible, the term “foot” assumes clearly that sense, regarding both male and female genitalia.192 The fish attack to Tobiah’s privates would then be paralleled symbolically to Asmodeus attack (and murder) of Sarah’s previous suitors in the moment they tried to consummate the marriage.193

186 See BDF, §326. 187 See GELS, 380; LS, 905 188 See HATIS, 65. 189 The last two letters of the Semitic equivalent (‫)בלע‬, are visible in 4Q197 fragment, clearly to be reconstructed as ‫למב[לע‬. See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 205; Beyer, ATTM II , 178. 190 See Aletti, et al., Vocabulaire, 85.99. 191 Supported by 4Q197: ‫רגל‬. 192 See M. H. Pope, “Bible, Euphemism and Dysphemism in the”, AYBD I, 719–725; F. J. Stendebach, “‫רגל‬,” TDOT 7, 330–345. 193 See Moore, Tobit, 199.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 113

The euphemistic sense of “foot” in the OT, however, is found only where the term occurs in plural (contrary for example to the use of term “hand,” regularly in singular with that same transposed meaning).194 In that light, although supported by our oldest Tobit witness to v.3b (4Q197) the singular “foot” in GII, could be explained as a manner the copyist found to avoid the transposed sense! Noteworthy, OL keeps the mention of “feet” (pedes) in both sequences and thus could potentially be transmitting the more original reading. Fitzmyer dismisses categorically such a reading as “sheer eisegesis.”195 In our view however, considering the importance of the theme of sexuality in Tobit, although the term in v.3b describes the fish attack to the feet as such, through that manner of recounting, the narrator may be suggesting to the reader also that supposed-to-be familiar sexual connotation regarding the feet.

Intertextuality: Tobit and Jonah in Dialogue? The omission in important witnesses of the term “feet,”196 thus having the big fish from the Tigris trying to swallow Tobiah entirely, may not but evoke, for someone familiar with bible traditions, the story of Jonah. Translators/editors, maybe precisely recognizing such a connection, transmitted the text in a manner that Jonah could be more easily recalled. Moreover, GI mentions explicitly the name Jonah in place of Nahum in Tobit 14:4, which although in a different context and with a different rhetorical function, substantiates further that hypothesis.197 Most commentators198 have recognized in the expression “big fish” in Tob 6:3b, although not a verbatim phrasing of Jonah 2:1 (LXX),199 an evocation of the

194 See Pope, “Euphemism”, 720–721. 195 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 206. 196 GI being the most important one within the Greek witnesses and consequently all its dependent textual witnesses like S1 for instance. Within the Latin tradition, in L3 and Vulgate we encounter the same situation, and within the late Hebrew witnesses, in H4, H5 and H7. See WGS, 178–179. 197 See M. R. J. Bredin, “The Significance of Jonah in Vaticanus (B) Tobit 14.4 and 8”, Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. R. J. Bredin) (LSTS 55; London 2006) 43–58. 198 See Moore, Tobit, 199; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 206; Littman, Tobit, 107; Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 116; Ego, Buch Tobit, 961; Interestingly, also some Jonah commentators have recognized that connection. See for instance, Sasson, Jonah, 150. 199 Hebrew expression ‫דג גדול‬, “big fish” in Jonah 2:1 (MT) becomes κήτει μεγάλω, “enormous fish,” in the LXX. The term κῆτος already means “any sea monster or huge fish.” (See LS 949). Its use in the LXX paired with the attribute “big,” intensifies significantly its already superlative

114 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

famous sea creature that is said to have swallowed the fleeting prophet.200 4Q197 in fact preserves the reading ‫נן חד רב‬201 as Aramaic background of ἰχθὺς μέγας in Tobit 6. Targum Jonathan for Jonah 2:1 has the same expression that appears in the Qumran text.202 Furthermore, the infinitive καταπιεῖν, used in both Tobit and Jonah (LXX) to describe the fish’s action regarding the protagonists in both fish incidents, is the LXX rendering of the infinitive construct ‫ לבלע‬in MT as well as in Targum Jonathan for Jonah 2:1 (‫)למבלע‬. Qumran fragment above mentioned preserves the last two letters of verb ‫בלע‬, hinting, as editors have restored it, to the same construction found in Jonah 2:1 (both MT and Targum). Furthermore, still at a linguistic level, remains of 4Q197 preserve the same word for “belly” (meaning literally “entrails, bowls”) used in Jonah 2:1 (both MT and Tar) to refer the prophet’s lodging place during three days.203 Not only at a linguistic level however Tobit’s dialogue with Jonah seems activated. Various thematic and compositional elements in fact, found in both narratives, intensify that link. The most evident one is the reference to the city of Nineveh as departure point in relation to the fish (horizontal axis).204 Jonah

meaning. The Greek translator, considering most likely the fact that the animal in the story is affirmed to have swallowed Jonah completely, rendered the Hebrew expression having in mind the Greek rendering of the ‫( תנינם‬LXX: τὰ κήτη τὰ μεγάλα) of Gen 1:21. Regarding Jonah’s literary and theological features, see F. Zimmermann, “Problems and Solutions in the Book of Jonah”, Judaism 40/4 (1991) 580–589; H. C. P. Kim, “Jonah Read Intertextually”, JBL 126/3 (2007) 497–528; J. W. Limburg, Hosea-Micah (Interpretation; Atlanta 1988) 137–157; Sasson, Jonah, 328–351. 200 The story of Jonah and Tobit’s fish scene are the sole narrations from the biblical tradition to present such a picturesque interaction between a biblical character and a fish. With another ideological meaning but still with a quite picturesque feature, we encounter in the NT, in the episode of the coin to pay the toll, on behalf of Jesus and Peter, through a fish catching. See Mt 17:27. 201 Fragment 4 (ac), I, 5–7. See WGS, 179; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids, MI 2000) 200–205; Beyer, ATTM II , 178. The use of the numeral ‫ חד‬as indefinite article is also found in 1QapGen 19:14; Ezra 4:8l Dan 2:1; 6:18; 7:5. See GQA 158. 202 In TarJ the MT phrase in Jonah 2:1 (‫( )דג גדול‬LXX: κήτει μεγάλω) is rendered ‫נונא רבא‬, the same found here in 4Q197 (‫)נון רב‬. See A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic Based On Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts (Leiden – Boston, MA 2004) III, 438. 203 See WGS, 180–181; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 206. 204 Noteworthy, however central Nineveh may be in Jonah, the city is mentioned by name in Tobit (GII) exactly twice of its occurrences in Jonah (18x). See Tob 1:3.10.17.19.22;7:3; 11:1.15.16{2x}.18;14:2.4{2x}.8.15{3x}. While Jonah ends with a positive view regarding Nineveh (whose inhabitants convert and receive mercy), Tobit ends with Tobiah’s rejoicing over the city’s destruction by the hands of the Medians (its historical fate in 612 BCE), which narratively underscores Tobit’s profession of faith in the prophetic word (see Tob 14:4; Nah 1:1; 2:8–10.13; 3:7.18–19;

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 115

is commanded by God to go eastwards to the big city and preach there, God’s admonition (centripetal movement). Instead, the prophet moves westwards towards the sea, to dodge the divine task (centrifugal movement). Tobiah also moves away from Nineveh (centrifugal movement), but eastwards. His moving away from the “big city,” however, is not to evade a command, but to fulfill it (see 5:1).205 Jonah’s moving away from Nineveh towards the sea is a patent act of disobedience.206 Tobiah’s movement towards the East, on the contrary, a loving act of obedience. Furthermore, the fact that by the end of a day journey Tobiah and the angel still encounter themselves by the Tigris river, may be seen as an implicit statement of behalf of Tobit’s narrator regarding the main attribute the Bible and particularly the book of Jonah ascribes to Nineveh, i.e. that of “big city” which demanded three days to go across it (see Jonah 1:2; 3:2–3; 4:11; Gen 10:12; Jdt 1:1). Another connecting element between the two stories, is the coming into the waters by both protagonists own initiative. Jonah in fact, insistently requests the resistant sailors to throw him into the agitated sea, burdened with the conviction that the storm was caused by his disobedience (see Jonah 1:12–15). Tobiah on his part, deliberately goes down to the waters, but merely to wash his feet (ironical twist of the intertextual dialogue). In both cases it is that movement downwards (in Jonah, from the ship; in Tobit, from the river’s banks) the narrative occasion for the emergence of a big fish. Although only implicitly inferable in Jonah, we may notice that both narrators articulate the account again in reference to spatial coordinate, now at vertical level (going down – coming up). In both stories, the fish tries to swallow (Tobit) or actually succeeds (Jonah), partially or totally the protagonists, coming up from the waters. A possible objection to the above mentioned connection could be the main  difference regarding the emergence of the fish in each story. In Jonah in fact,  the narrator explicitly states in 2:1 that it is the LORD who “commanded”

Zep 2:13). It is interesting that in Revelation, Nineveh’s appellative becomes that of Babylon, in the seer’s imaginative descriptions (see Rev 11:8; 16:19; 17:18; 18:16.21). As an aside annotation, regardfving intertextuality in Tobit, we might ask ourselves whether for the description of Rev 11:8, John might have found inspiration in Tob 1:17–19; 2:4.8. Sasson in his commentary called the attention to a curious detail regarding the Nineveh. The sumerogram NINA (cuneiform writing of its name), seems to signify,“house /temple of the fish.” That meaning may contain some folkexplanations about the origin of the city. See Sasson, Jonah, 71. 205 Although Tobit never explicitly asks his son to go to Rages to recover it. It is Tobiah who infers that implicit petition. 206 See E. J. Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible : Jonah. Daniel. Koheleth. Esther (New York 1967) 9–13.

116 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

(Sasson: “directed”207; Wolf: “appointed”208) the sea creature to swallow the prophet.209 In Tobit instead, the narrator says nothing in that regard. Tobiah’s encounter with the fish appears merely circumstantial. Nevertheless, the fact that in Tob 6 the angel acquaints with Tobiah descending to the waters when it was already dark, alone, and Raphael’s subsequent serene and authoritative directive reaction (instead of that of helping the endangered lad), could suggest a similar intended sense in Tobit. Considering the importance of the fish in the story and the value the angel attributes to it, the idea of a divine orchestrated plan appears more than plausible. Moreover, the fact that for Tobiah to catch the fish a continued leaping up of it would be necessary (graspable through the manner the narrator refers the happening), seems further confirm that supposition (a divine “command” to the fish to, finally, come to the aid of Tobiah). Under the surveillance of God’s sent angel, in effect, a potential threatening is transformed in source of life (food and medicine). Furthermore, we may notice a link between the two stories also from a thematic point of view. In Jonah, the fish is finally a divine intervention, peculiar and picturesque as it may be, to save the prophet from death (by drowning).210 In Tobit story, the fish also becomes a means to salvation, even from death. Subtly perceivable through its serving as nourishment for the travelers (see 6:6c), it is in its importance to the double healing processes, especially in that of Sarah that its salvific feature becomes patent (and in relation to Tobiah). In effect, from the characters’ perspective, both Tobit and Sarah’s distress implied a deadly element. Both Tobit and Sarah explicitly asks God for death in prayer (see 3:6.13.15).211 While talking to Azariah, Tobit affirms that in his blindness, he sees himself as a living among the dead (see 5:10). Sarah for her part, was despaired of her situation to the point of even considering suicide (see 3:10). Noteworthy, instead of answering their pleading with death, God sends Raphael to save both of them, by healing them from their respective sorrows. In that process, Tobiah, through the fish organs, plays a fundamental role. The healing brings back both protagonists to the fullness of life.212 207 See Sasson, Jonah, 147–149. 208 See Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah, 125–126.132. 209 In the “big fish” emergence in Jonah, in its “obedience” to the LORD, we find another ironical twist of the incident, which serves to highlight Jonah’s disobedience and through it impart a lesson. 210 See Sasson, Jonah, 151; Bickerman, Four Strange Books, 12. 211 Considering that his petition would be granted soon, he called his son Tobiah to reveal about the money (See 4:2), element that activates Tobiah’s travel. 212 Regarding Sarah, by granting her consuming her marriage and having children; regarding Tobit, by having him returning to see the light of life. See 3:17; 5:10; 14:10.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 117

Particularly significant is the fact that the fish, in effect, saves also Tobiah from death just as it does for Jonah. Considering the development of the story and Tobiah’s involvement with Sarah, a potential risk of death (within the world of the narration) projects its shadow over Tobiah, who in fact explicitly recognizes it in 6:14–16. Before him seven of Sarah’s suitors had died in the marital chamber. It is the attacking/conquered fish’s heart and liver, thanks to the directions received from the angel, that, warding off the demon, protect Tobiah from becoming the eighth of Sarah’s pretenders killed by the envious demon. At marriage night, so sure Raguel was of that deadly end, that he even helped dig a grave (see 8:9–12)! Finally, playing skillfully with the motif of eating or more precisely of “swallowing” (effective in Jonah; frustrated in the case of Tobiah), Tobit’s author “peppers” his intertextual dialogue with Jonah with a refined irony. Jonah’s fleeting decision out of disobedience to God’s command led him to be swallowed by the big fish; Tobiah’s obedience, first to his father’s implicit commission (notwithstanding his ineptness to such a task) then to the divine envoy’s commands (even if unaware of that identity) to the opposite: the biting animal, ends up being cooked and eaten by him! Jonah is totally passive regarding the fish (God is in command for its swallowing and vomiting Jonah); Tobiah, empowered by the angel’s words, becomes a hero-like actor regarding the attacking creature. Moreover, while Jonah ends up into the fish’s entrails, Tobiah is instructed by the angel to throw them out (v.5a, another suggestion of his victory over the beast).213 In that sense, I agree with Levine in her annotation about a parodic nuance in Tobit’s fish episode with respect to the story of Jonah.214 By recognizing that intended intertextual connection, the reader is also amused with a comic element, which results from the narrator’s parody of that expected-to-be-known story. Jacobs interpretation of the motifs of eating/being eaten in relation to the fish in Tob 6 are as images of the personification of death in ancient Near Eastern literature.215

213 Considering that Jonah’s prayer inside the big fish explicitly links the fish with the Sheol (see Jonah 2:2–3), Jacobs sees a relationship between sea creatures and the underworld also in Tobit and elsewhere. See Jacobs, A Commentary on Food and Eating, 157, note 470. 214 See A.-J. Levine, “Tobit: Teaching Jews How to Live in the Diaspora”, BibRev 8/4 (1992) 42–51 (64), 46. 215 “It is telling that Death/the Underworld (Mot, Sheol, Hades, etc.) is depicted with the language of consumption as far back as the Ugaritic corpus and continues to be so depicted into Hebrew Bible and onwards. Death, like the great fish, ‘swallows’ (see Prov 1:12) and ‘devours’ (see KTU 1.5 i 6), has a mouth (see KTU 1.5, ii 5; Isa 5:14; Ps 141:7; Hab 2:5), a throat (see KTU 1.5 i 7) and a belly (see KTU 1.5 ii 4; Jonah 2:3; prayer in Sirach (51:5); 3 Bar 5:3). It is also characterized

118 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

In the story of the fleeting prophet, his being swallowed by the fish, becomes the occasion for a special return to God.216 In fact, once in the fish’s belly (see Jonah 2:1), the “first thing” Jonah does, is pray (see Jonah 2:2–11). That prayer, put by the narrator in Jonah’s mouth, begins with a recognition for God’s salvific action (see Jonah 2:3). In Tobit story, at least at first sight, we do not find a parallel effect, at least not regarding Tobiah. In effect, in Tob 6, the narrator refrains from characterizing Tobiah from a religious point of view (leaving it to chapter eight).217 Nevertheless, in the healing of the father Tobit certainly implies that dimension. In effect, Tobit’s sight recovery through the appliance of the conquered fish-gall by hands of his victorious son, becomes also for him the occasion for a renewed return to God. His physical healing, as commentators have noticed, brings about a deeper healing, of a spiritual blindness, whose expression becomes a rediscovery of God’s goodness (see 11:14). In his blindness, Tobit seemed only able to recognize God’s justice (Tobit’s prayer in fact abounds in expressions regarding that attribute).218 After his sight recovery, praise and thanksgiving pervades his piety, culminating in the song of chapter 13.219 Furthermore, Jonah, spewed out of the fish belly,220 finally accepts God’s call, and goes to Nineveh to deliver as insatiable. In fact, in the Ugaritic Ba’al Cycle of 1400 BCE, Mot’s appetite is compared with that of a sea creature. Indeed, it is within this broader tradition that YHWH’s swallowing of death in Isaiah 25:8 functions as a powerful reversal.” See Jacobs, A Commentary on Food and Eating, 162. 216 In that regard, Jacobs also sees an echo of Jonah’s idea regarding the repentance of sinners (4:3) in Tob 3:6; 13:6. See Jacobs, A Commentary on Food and Eating, 157–158. 217 See Tobiah’s (and Sarah’s) prayer in 8:5–8 218 See S. Virgulin, “La preghiera nel libro di Tobia”, PSV 3/1 (1981) 47–58; C. A. Moore, “In Misery, Tobit Prays for Death (3:1–6)”, Prayer from Alexander to Constantine. A Critical Anthology (ed. M. C. Kiley) (London 1997) 43–47; A. A. Di Lella, “Two Major Prayers in the Book of Tobit”, Prayer from Tobit to Qumran. Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5–9 July 2003 (eds. R. Egger-Wenzel – J. Corley) (DCLY 2004; Berlin 2004) 95–115; S. M. L. Van den Eynde, “Prayer as Part of Characterization and Plot: An Analysis of Its Narrative Function in Tobit 3”, Analyse Narrative et Bible. Deuxième Colloque International du RRENAB, Louvain-la-Neuve, Avril 2004 (éd. C. Focante – A. Wénin) (BETL 191; Leuven 2005) 527–536; H. Frey-Anthes, “Praise, Petition, Lament – and Back: On the Significance of Lament in the Book of Tobit”, Evoking Lament. A Theological Discussion (ed. E. Harasta – B. Brock) (London 2009) 136–149. 219 Worthy of notice is the author’s play with Tobiah’s name (God is good) after Tobit’s sight recovery. The first thing Tobit says is that he sees again “you my son, light of my eyes” (11:14). Then from that moment on, expression of “blessing, thanksgiving, acknowledgment” conveyed by the narrator with terms relating the Greek root εὐλογ-/ἐξομολογ- are abundant, notably in the context of the healing processes (See 8:5.15; 9:6; 10:13; 11:14–17; 12:6–7.17.20.22; 13:1.3.6.8.12–13.16.18; 14:2.7.15). 220 Interestingly, while Tob 6:4b has the reading ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, 4Q197 (4 i 7–8) preserves the reading ‫( ליבשא‬as in Jonah 2:11, MT: ‫ אל־היבשה‬/ TarJ : ‫)ליבשתא‬. Also regarding the Latin witnesses:

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 119

the divine message. After complete victory over the fish, symbolized in Tobiah’s keeping of it as food and medicine, Tobiah accepts freely the divine ordinance of marrying Sarah, fully aware of the deadly threat that expects him in the killer demon Asmodeus. God in both stories is presented as “LORD/God of heaven.”221 In light of all the evidence just presented, Levine seems correct in seeing Tobiah’s interaction with the big fish an intentional parody of the book of Jonah.222 In that regard one could say that Tobit’s author depicts Tobiah as an anti-Jonah character. The narrator’s skillfully constructed links of Tobiah’s encounter with the fish with Jonah’s, may be seen then as a key interpretive component of Tobiah’s characterization and undergoing (educational) process in Tob 6.223

Excursus 2 – Interpretations Regarding Fishes in Tobit’s Surrounding Cultural Milieu Also as a mode of excursus, we complete our introductory considerations on the fish of Tob 6, presenting an overview on the history of its interpretation. The rich symbolic interpretive tradition regarding fishes ubiquitous in Tobit’s surrounding cultural milieu seems to have constituted a “fertile humus” for the various interpretations of the fish of Tob 6 to blossom in the course of the years. Unlike the dog, the impact and significance of the fish in Tobit, at both story and discourse levels, is evident. It emerges in an ever growing manner in Tob 6 and from there while OL preservers the reading in terram, Vg (said to be translated from an Aramaic text) transmits in siccum. See 3:17; 6:12b.13a.e.18e. 221 In Jonah, we encounter the expression in the prophet’s confession before the sailor in Jon 1:9. In Tobit, it will be found in the travel account in Tob 6:18, in mouth of Raphael. In Tobit (God of Heaven) 5:17; 7:13; 8:5.15(2x); 9:6. (Lord of Heaven) 6:18; 7:12 (2x).17; 10:11.14; (King of Heaven) 1:18; 10:14; 13:13.17. In the LXX, it is found in Gen 24:3.7; 2 Chr 36:23; Ezra 1:2; Neh 1:2.4.5; 2:4.20; Dan 2:37. In non-biblical literature it occurs for instance in 1 En 13:4; AssMos 4:4; Test. Benj. 10:7. See H. Niehr, “God of Heaven (‫”)אלהי השׁמים‬, DDD, 257–264; Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah, 115–116; Reiterer, “An Archangel’s Theology”, 257–264; K. Schöpflin, “Die Hellenisierung der jüdischen Gottesbezeichnung. Ein Versuch anhand von Beobachtungen am spätbiblischen Buch Tobit”, Alexan- dria (Hrsg. T. Georges  – F. Albrecht  – R. Feldmeier) (Tübingen 2013) 313–340, 327–329; D. A. Machiela, “Lord or God? Tobit and the Tetragrammaton”, CBQ 75 (2013) 463–472; N. S. Jacobs, “Scribal Innovations and the Book of Tobit: A Long Overdue Discussion”, Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls. John Collins at Seventy (ed. J. Baden – H. Najman – E. Tigchelaar) (JSJS 175; Leiden 2017) I 579–610, 593–598; Regarding divine epithets in second Temple Aramaic literature, see M. J. Bernstein, “Divine Titles and Epithets and the Sources of the ”Genesis Apocryphon””, JBL 128/2 (2009) 291–310. 222 See Levine, “Tobit”, 46. 223 Also in the book of Jonah, a pedagogical dimension in God’s interaction with the reluctant prophet is graspable.

120 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

onwards (more precisely, until Tob 11). Most ancient commentators realizing it, paid great attention to the fish. With respect to fish-symbolism in antiquity, and particularly the manner it developed during Greek and Roman times, scholarship is highly favored with the monumental works of Erwin Goodenough224 and above all of Laurence Kant (an almost thousand pages long contribution only on fish symbolism) upon which we count for our synthesis.225

A. Literal Interpretations As noted while discussing the dog-issue, most ancient commentators of Tobit, commented on the Vg. Although alluding to the washing of the feet, Jerome’s version describes the fish trying to swallow Tobiah entirely.226 No surprise then that at literal level, speculations focused on the type of water creature the author would possibly be referring to in such an incident. Even if the Greek term and its Semitic Vorlage as witnessed at Qumran, seems sufficiently specific to indicate a fish, the term appears to have appealed commentators only vaguely, allowing thus also other possibilities. A Lapide in his commentary condensed and evaluated the various proposals in that regard up to his time.227 Literal speculations regarding the fish seem to presuppose the historicity of Tobit’s story. A Lapide begins evaluating the suggestion of aliqui (no names are given) that the fish of Tob 6 was a cetus (latinized form of κῆτος= any sea monster or huge fish) and more specifically a “whale” (most likely for its evocation of Jonah’s story). Although of whales is known that homines vorat et glutit, such could

224 See E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Vol. 5–6: Fish, Bread, and Wine (Bollingen Series 37; New York 1956) V, 3–61. 225 See L. H. Kant, The Interpretation of Religious Symbols in the Greco-Roman World. A Case Study of Early Christian Fish Symbolism (Volumes I–III) (Diss. Yale University; New Haven, CT 1993); According to Culpepper, Kant’s work “is now the definitive study of fish symbolism in Early Christianity and the Graeco-Roman world.” See R. A. Culpepper, “Designs for the Church in the Imagery of John 21:1–14”, Imagery in the Gospel of John (eds. J. Frey  – J. G. Van Der Watt – R.  Zimmermann) (WUNT 200; Tübingen 2006) 369–402, 395; See also N. Icard, – A.-V. Szabados, – P. Linant de Bellefonds, “La pêche dans le monde Grec et Roman”, Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum (ed. J.-C. Balty) (Los Angeles, CA 2005) VI, 378–387; J. Davidson, “Fish, Sex and Revolution in Athens”, ClassQ 43/1 (1993) 53–66. 226 Profectus est autem Tobias, et canis secutus est eum, et mansit prima mansione juxta fluvium Tigris. Et exivit ut lavaret pedes suos, et ecce piscis immanis exivit ad devorandum eum. Quem expavescens Tobias clamavit voce magna, dicens: Domine, invadit me (6:1–3 Vg). 227 See Lapide, Commentarius in Tobiam, 61–62; Arnald, “A Commentary Upon the Book of Tobit”, 625.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 121

not have been Tobit’s fish, since utpote vastissimas, non capit Tigris fluvius, sed vastum mare. Rursum balaenam solus Tobias extrahere nequivisset.228 The second proposal he pondered was that of Denis the Carthusian,229 who suggested the attacking creature being a crocodile. But crocodilus in terra vivit, not in water, according to Cornelius. Moreover, Vg’s description in 6:4 (palpitare coepit in siccum ante pedes eius)230 would not fit for that reptile. Thirdly then, A Lapide evaluates various suggestions regarding the fish-type that could have attacked Tobiah. Some proposed a pike (esox luccius), in fact a carnivorous and voracious fish, whose name suggests that of a “wolf,” which Cornelius dismissed stating that such fishes non sunt tam grandes et audaces, ut homines invadere audeant (see 6:3 Vg). Among the other proposals he examines next, A Lapide considers Valesius’,231 who following Pliny, Menander and others, proposed the callionymum. Apparently some subspecies of dragonet, carnivorus et voracissimus, dentes habentes serratos ac oculos in vertice capitis fixos (thus dreadful already from its outfit), such fish abounds in gall. Even if speculations in that direction are finally of little or no significance for the sense of the incident, fact is that still today some fish species found in the Tiger causes great impression (besides the pike, also the nocturnal catfish), particularly for their imposing magnitude.232 The acquaintance with such reality, presumably also known at his time, may (also) have inspired the author regarding his fish motif. Furthermore, considering a possible Egyptian origin for the story, later in time Grotius suggests a hippopotamus as the attacking creature. Strange as it may appear to interpret Vg’s piscis inmanis as a hippo, Grotius statement, due to its conciseness, is difficult to evaluate properly.233 Finally, in his 1879 contribution on Tobit’s textual tradition, Nöldecke re-proposed the idea of the crocodile. His hypothesis was that, the ancient folktale at the base of our present Tobit story, was of Egyptian origin and described a crocodile attacking Tobiah.234 Considering how much the abundant presence, magnitude and ferocity of Nile’s crocodiles 228 See Lapide, Commentarius in Tobiam, 61. 229 Denys van Leeuwen, Denis Ryckel or Dionysius van Rijkel (Rijkel 1402 – Roermond 1471), was a Catholic monk, theologian and mystic. 230 Reading unique to the Vulgate for 6:4. See WGS, 180. 231 Henri Valois (Paris 1603  –1676), philologist and student of classical and ecclesiastical historians. 232 A good idea of the size of fishes that still now may be caught in the Tigris river, see Littman, Tobit, 193. 233 In fact, made of merely two words: forte hippopotamus. See Groot, Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum, III, 6. 234 See T. Nöldeke, “Die Texte des Buches Tobit”, Monatsberichte der königlichen preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1879) 45–79, 62.

122 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

stirred ancient imagination (referred in fact in several epigraphic sources), such proposal has a certain logic.235 Nevertheless, as Zimmermann stated, considering the narrative development of the incident, ending with Tobiah cooking and eating of the fish, “the eating of crocodile would be intolerable to Jewish readers (Lev 11:12).”236

B. Symbolic Interpretations In the Ancient Near East and Greece In most ancient cultures, water was seen as the source of all life. Living naturally in such a medium, it is quite logical that soon a certain sacredness would be attributed to fishes, which then would be associated to fertility, quantity of offspring and sexuality. As Kant stated, “associations of fish with sexuality and fertility were ubiquitous in ancient fish symbolism in the Greco-Roman world.”237 Furthermore, certain divinities and myths related to them, were also linked to fishes. Fishes were recounted to have brought dead heroes’ bodies to be properly buried; fish meals and offerings were often practices in funerary contexts; chthonic divinities were often associated with fishes.238 In brief, in the ancient world, fishes were frequently joined with ideas and beliefs regarding life and death. Although maybe not one of the more important symbols of Egyptian religion, Egyptians in general regarded many different types of fish inhabiting the Nile as sacred.239 Some known fish taboos (like the absolute prohibition for priests of eating fish) and preserved fish mummies, support such view.240 Moreover, in some Egyptian myth, it was a fish who ate the phallus of Osiris (the Egyptian god of the afterlife, death, life and resurrection), who was killed by his brother Set (who wanted Osiris’ throne). Having joined the fragments of Osiris’ body and noting that the only missing member was the phallus, Isis (goddess of health, marriage and wisdom) fashioned a golden one. Having brought Osiris back to life through a spell, Isis became pregnant by him, before he died again. It is apparently such myth that accounts for the popular association of the fish with the 235 See Moore, Tobit, 199; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 205–206. 236 See Zimmermann, Book of Tobit, 79. 237 See Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, I, 292.299. 238 See Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, 162. 239 See Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, 182. 240 See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, V, 14.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 123

phallus (particularly of Osiris). In that light it is understandable why the fish would acquire a powerful sexual and generative association, often linked with Osiris and thus developing into a symbol of fruitfulness, life and immortality.241 In Mesopotamia, the fish was a widespread sacrificial offering242 and was identified with several gods and goddesses. Besides its association with fertility, from ancient times as it appears, the fish had also a strong “chthonic” association. Connected to the (later) idea of re-birth, it was often used in funerary rites as part of ritualistic banquets. Both sacrificial, funerary and fertile elements, highlight the symbolic link of the fish with the themes of life and death (and life after death). If the interpretation of epigraphic evidence is correct, also in Mesopotamia the fish had a phallic symbolism.243 Particularly in Syria and Phoenicia, the fish had a highly religious-symbolic significance. According to one myth, fishes saved Atargatis, the chief goddess of northern Syria and primarily of fertility, and because of that were transported into heaven.244 It was in relation to that myth apparently, that talismans with a fishlike shape (also found in northern Palestine) became popular emblems of protection.245 Fishes were also sacred daily offerings to Atargatis, whose representation as a “mermaid,” makes more than evident the connection of her worship with the fish.246 From such fish meat only priests were allowed to eat. In fact, a person who ate fish as ordinary food was thought to be afflicted by the goddess with swellings (of feet and stomach) and ulcers.247 Pettazzoni states that the “sin” of having eaten fish is also mentioned in sins’ confession texts from pre-Christian Syria.248 In addition to the Atargatis cult, it is also documented that of Oannes ( Ὡάννης), the Babylonian semi-god of wisdom. Represented with a fish-like body (but with human head and feet), that legendary figure (according to Berossus’ transmitted tradition, from 430.000 years before the flood) is described as having dwelt in the Persian Gulf and risen out of the waters in the daytime to furnish mankind with instructions on writing, arts and various sciences.249

241 See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, I, 395; Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, I, 395. 242 See E. D. Van Buren, “Fish-Offerings in Ancient Mesopotamia”, Iraq 10/2 (1948) 101–121. 243 See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, V, 15–16. 244 See in that regard particularly Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, I, 191–201. 245 See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, V, 16. 246 See Lucian, Dea Syria, 45. 247 See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, V, 17. 248 See R. Pettazzoni, “La confession des péchés en Syrie aux époques préchrétiennes”, Mélanges Syriens offerts à M. René Dussaud (éd. R. Dussaud) (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 30/1; Paris 1939) 197–202, 197–198. 249 See Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, I, 198–199.

124 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

In ancient Greece, fishes were consumed apparently everywhere, although Pythagoreans are said to have had a taboo against fish eating, not exactly clear why. A relative sacredness however should be attributed to the fish also in Greece, considering that in Greek religious traditions certain deities (like Atargatis or Poseidon) could metamorphose or are said to have metamorphosed into a fish250 (with the consequence that a god could be a fish and a fish a god).251 Evidence suggests that fish offerings and fish meals for the dead were practiced at certain places.252 Furthermore, ancient records refer also to local practices of divination or augury by fishes and pictographic evidence, of fish consumption in Dionysian orgies.253 Of particular significance (for becoming popular also among the Jews) was the diffused practice of fish eating at Greek wedding feasts. Apparently under eastern influence, such practice was connected with the fertility symbolism of the fish, which could explain that, also in Greece the fish became a popular phallic symbol.254 Interestingly, although absent from the representations of classical period, such ancient symbolic values of the fish reappeared in Hellenistic and Roman times.

In Ancient Jewish Sources Some interesting fish related values are also found in ancient Jewish sources. In one manner or the other they appealed to us as bearing direct or indirect relationship with Tobit’s fish story. The subject of ancient Judaism is a complex one, beginning with the very definition of that concept. Also complex is the connected issue of chronology of Rabbinic sources (like the Talmud) upon which Goodenough also relies greatly.255 Even aware of those problems, we still found interesting to highlight some of the symbolic elements regarding fishes transmitted in ancient Jewish sources. Among the various elements presented by Goodenough, 250 See Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, I, 181–182. 251 See Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, II, 377. 252 See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, V, 20–21. 253 See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, V, 18. 254 See in that regard also C. A. Shaw, “‘Genitalia of the Sea’: Seafood and Sexuality in Greek Comedy”, MNEM 67 (2014) 554–576. 255 Among our perplexities regarding the vast and documented work of Goodenough, in fact, besides the fact that several of his interpretations (although balanced) are from epigraphic evidence (with its attached hermeneutic problems) was precisely that of chronology. In fact, while evaluating his contribution, the question about whence would certain ideas have had their origin within the period he studies (Greek-Roman world), come frequently to one’s mind. Only here and there in fact, the author offers chronological references.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 125

we have chosen two, for their plausible connection with (later) ancient Christian ideas regarding fishes in general and Tobit’s fish in particular: eating of fish in relation to Messianic era and the connection of fishes with the idea of immortality and fertility. Basing themselves apparently in circumscribed biblical traditions regarding Leviathan,256 Rabbis developed the idea that in the great day of the coming of the Messiah, God would give the elected to eat in Jerusalem from the flesh of defeated Leviathan (God and humanity’s primeval enemy).257 According to a midrash God created Leviathan on the fifth day (see Yalk., Gen 12), male and female.258 Had they multiplied they would have destroyed the world. To avoid that, God castrated the male and slew the female, preserving her meat in salt also for the banquet of the righteous in the Messianic era (see b. Baba Bathra, 74b). In that eschatological Messianic feast, God will also make tents for the righteous with the skin of Leviathan (see b. Baba Bathra, 75a). In some way related or dependent to the previous traditions appears to be the Jewish costum of having sacred fish meals, beginning with fish consumption at the eve of the Sabbath (including also bread and wine).259 In the middle ages it becomes obligatory among orthodox Jews to have at least one fish meal during Sabbath.260 Fish eating seems to have come to symbolize the hope of Israel for those upcoming times.261 Jewish sources also witness to the idea of fishes as symbol of the hope of immortality. Basically related to the story of Jonah, the fish is seen as an image of the grave; Jonah’s swallowing, of death; his spitting out, hope of life everlasting.262 256 See Ps 74:13–14; Isa 27:1 and Job 41. 257 See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, V, 35–41; Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, I, 170–174. Although Leviathan is presented in the Bible as a sort of sea serpent (Isa 27:1 LXX reads δράκοντα ὄφιν (“dragon-serpent”) for MT ‫ ;)לויתן‬Vg: serpentem. Leviathan is also referred there as ‫ ;תנין‬LXX: δράκοντα; Vg: cetus, “large sea animal,” thus “whale, porpoise or dolphin”), Rabbis interpreted it as a fish, thus with scales and fins (Job 3:8 LXX for instance reads μέγα κῆτος in place of MT ‫ )לויתן‬and therefore kosher. See; C. Cohen, “Leviathan”, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (ed. A. Berlin) (New York, NY – Oxford 2011) 443–444, See also in that regard,; E. G. Hirsch, et al. “Leviathan and Behemoth”, Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. (New York – London 1906) 37–39, Jubilees 2:11; Apoc. Abraham 10:10; 2 Baruch 29:1–4. 258 See in that regard L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, PA 1925) V, 41, note 117. 259 See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, V, 46; Shabbath, 118b; See also in that regard, E. G. Freudenstein, “Sabbath Fish”, Judaism 29.4 (1980) 418; G. E. Gardner, “Let Them Eat Fish: Food for the Poor in Early Rabbinic Judaism”, JSJ 45 (2014) 250–270. 260 See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, 41–47; Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, I, 159– 161. In the context of sacred fish eating, Goodenough refers Tobiah and the fish.; Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, V, 45–46. 261 See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, V, 38. 262 See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, V, 48.

126 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Such tradition could be at the base of Jesus’ words linking his resurrection to the story of the swallowed prophet (see Mat 12:39–41). Such religious link of fish eating with eternal life, smoothes the path towards associating fish eating with fertility (a symbolism found in most cultures of eastern Mediterranean area). B. Kethuboth 5a teaches that a maiden married on the fourth day (of the week) should wait to have her first intercourse only on the fifth day, in which the blessing of the fishes was pronounced (see Gen 1:20–23). The custom of jumping over vessels with fish or eating fish at wedding celebrations, linked with the idea of fertility, is still lasting in various Jewish circles.263

In Ancient Christian Sources Considering Tobit’s wide circulation in Christian environments, it is no surprise that its fish-motif would appeal to Christian commentators with a symbolicChristological sense.264 As it is known, relatively early in time, the Greek term for fish (ἰχθύς) became an acronym for Jesus Christ, with each letter conveying key Christian beliefs regarding him.265 In words of Kant, “In early Christian iconography the fish is closely associated with Christ, the Eucharist, death, resurrection, and new life. At least by the beginning of the third century the fish was well stablished as a symbol for Christ.”266 Such development inserts itself within the Gospel traditions regarding Jesus’ multiplication of the loaves and fishes (see Mk 6:34–44; John 6:1–15) and the fish meal with the resurrected Lord in John 21. Such traditions, by their very manner of recounting, link the fish meal to the Eucharistic bread and wine sacred meal (last Supper), associated with Jesus’ Passover (crucifixion, death and resurrection). Early depictions of that tradition in fact,

263 See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, V, 50; C. Adler,  – M. Grunwald, “Marriage Cerimonies”, Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. (New York  – London 1906) 340–347, 341; R. Apple et al., “Marriage,” EJ, vol. 13, 563–574. 264 For the symbolic value of the fish in Christianity, see Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, V, 31– 61; Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, I, 159–160.170–174. 265 In that regard, for example Augustinus, De Civit. Dei, XVIII, 23 (PL 41{13–804} 579): “Haec sane Erythraea Sibylia quaedam de Christo manifesta conscripsit; quod etiam nos prius in Latina lingua versibus male Latinis et non stantibus legimus per nescio cuius interpretis imperitiam, sicut post cognovimus. Nam vir clarissimus Flaccianus…Graecum nobis codicem protulit, carmina esse dicens Sibyllae Erythraeae, ubi ostendit quodam loco in capitibus versuum ordinem literarum ita se habentem ut haec in eo verba legerentur: Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς θεοῦ υἱὸς σωτήρ, quod est latine Iesus Christus Dei filius salvator.” See also Culpepper, “Designs for the Church in the Imagery of John 21:1–14”, 395. 266 See Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, II, 396.513–651.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 127

display the table of the last supper with Jesus and the apostles, and instead of bread and wine, with loaves and fishes on it, a creative manner of connecting both traditions. Later in time, while commenting on the Johanine tradition, Augustine of Hippo, would make known the interpretation of the roasted fishes of John 21 as a symbol of Christ’s crucifixion, through his celebrated formula “piscis assus, Christus est passus.”267 The passage to a Christological reading of Tobiah’s fish, roasted and eaten in the course of the travel was a logical step. In effect, early in time the fish of Tob 6 was related to the mystery of Christ and the Church: its “fishing” was read as a figure of salvation and of baptism, and the eating of it, a symbol of the Eucharistic banquet.268 The miraculous fish of Tob 6 was also read as a typology of Christ, whose miraculous activity also produced healing results.269 Thus the Pseudo-Agustine will write: Est enim Christus piscis ille, quid ad Tobiam ascendit de flumine vivus, cuius iecore pre prunas passionis assato, fugatus es diabolus, et per amaritudinem fellis afflatus, et illuminatus est mundus270. And Quodvultdeus, that Christ is, piscis sua passione decoctus, cuius ex interioribus remediis cottidie inluminamur et pascimur.271 Notwithstanding the negative connotation of Leviathan in the Bible and Rabbinic sources, Rufinus of Aquileia (340/45–410) did not see a problem to link Leviathan with the savior Christ mediating the fish symbolism.272 Related to that Jewish tradition, evidence points out to even a sacred (certainly nonsacramental) fish meal during a certain time in Christian circles, often in funerary contexts.273 Such fish consumption appear to represent the consumption of the Eucharist.274

267 See Augustinus, In evangelium Ioannis, 123.2 (PL 35:1966). Also Petrus Chrysologus, Sermo 55.6 (PL 52:354); Eucherius, Liber formularum spiritalis intelligentiae 4 (PL 50:748); Gregorius Magnus, Homiliae in evangelia 24.5 (PL 76:1187). 268 See in that regard J. Doignon, “Tobie et le poisson dans la littérature et l’iconographie occidentales (IIIe-Ve siècle), du symbolisme funéraire à une exégèse christique” RHR 190 (1976) 113–126;E. R. Goodenough, Jewish symbols in the Greco-Roman period. Vol. 2: The archaeological evidence from the Diaspora. (Bollingen Series; New York 1953) V, 45–46; Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, II, 308–504. 269 See Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, II, 617. 270 See Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo 205,1 (PL 39:2125). A similar idea is found in Optatus Milevitanus, De schismate Donatistarum, 3.2 (PL 11:990f). 271 See Quodvultdeus, Liber promissionum, 2.39.90 (CCSL 60). 272 See Commentarius in Symbol. Apost., 16 (PL 21: 354–355). 273 See C. Vogel, “Le repas sacré au poisson chez les chrétiens”, RSR 40 (1966) 1–26; Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, I, 202–213; Zeno Veronensis, Tractatus, 2.38 (PL 11:483–485). 274 See Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, I, 210.

128 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Later in time, although still related with the mysteries of Jesus’ Passion and Resurrection, the fish symbolism seen through Bede’s allegorical lenses acquires a surprisingly different sense. Bede sees that the fish Tobiah catches, antiquum generis humani devoratorem, hoc est diabolum designat.275 Therefore, from being a symbol of Christ himself via the acronymic interpretation of Greek ἰχθύς, in Bede the fish becomes a symbol of the devil! In that line of interpretation, the waters of the Tigris become a symbol of death and human mortal condition; Tobiah’s winning over the fish, a symbol of Christ’s victory over Satan through his Passion.

Summary Similar fish-attached values are found in the various cultural and religious practices of the mediterranean area and the ancient Near East. Such evidence per se supports the idea that, in fact, a fruitful ideological exchange came about through the historical, political and economic processes active in the Levant during the first millennium BCE (implying certainly also Israel and the Jews).276 Tobit story is born somewhere within the borders of such milieu in the Hellenistic period. Although the specific manner in which such exchange might have come about for Tobit is out of our reach, we may however assume that, with great probability, some of those ideas may also have influenced its author, considering the importance credited by him to his fish motif, supported by the scarce references to fish and fish stories in the OT. In that regard, Goodenough seems right stating that, although the evidence appears to form no chain necessarily, it “presents itself as a series of arrows all apparently pointing in one direction.”277 Furthermore, Kant in his research has shown that, certain ideas and practices of the surrounding pagan milieu, properly purified, seem to have been integrated in the ideology and practices in the Judeo-Christian tradition regarding fishes. Ideas related to the themes of life and death are detectable in the symbolic-theological interpretations of Tobit’s fish. New Testament ideas regarding baptism and the Eucharist to which the fish was related are both deeply imbued with the themes of life and death. “In general, the chthonic associations of fish 275 See B. Venerabilis, In Librum Beati Patris Tobiae Allegorica Interpretatio (PL 90, 925–938;) 928. 276 See in that regard, P. W. Haider, “Synkretismus zwischen griechisch-römischen und orientalischen Gottheiten”, Religionsgeschichte Syriens : von der Frühzeit bis zur Gegenwart (StuttgartBerlin-Köln 1996) 145–194, 145–194; Hengel, “The Interpenetration of Judaism and Hellenism in the Pre-Maccabean Period”, II 167–228. 277 See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, V, 46.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 129

made it an appropriate food for all meals  – pagan and Christian  – associated with death.”278 The link of the fish with fertility and life everlasting is present in different manners in pagan, Jewish and Christian ideas regarding the fish in general. A more explicit association of the idea of fertility with human sexuality, for obvious reasons is absent in early Christian interpretations of the fish in general and of Tobit’s fish in particular. In a sober manner however it is found in Jewish tradition.

3.2.5 And Tobiah Cried Out Loud (v.3c) 3.2.5.1 Κράζω Continuing our exegesis, we move to Tobiah’s reaction before the fish. GII conveys it through verb κράζω, “to cry out, scream”279; also “to emit loud vocal sound for help.”280 Grundmann emphasizes its theological dimension, affirming that the Greek OT uses it mostly to convey a crying to God in times of need.111 Its occurrence in the LXX translates mostly Hebrew/Aramaic ‫זעק‬.281 The narrative description in Tob 6:3c seems to exclude any theological connotation in its use of κράζω. Rather, it seems to describe Tobiah’s wordless reaction, his interjection before the unexpected appearance of a “big fish.” That seems to be the interpretation given by the OL translator (exclamavit; Vg: clamauit uoce magna).282 Crying out of fear or asking for help? The context seems to suggest a mixture of both. Tobiah’s outcry by itself seems to vindicate a reaction out of fear; the angel’s response, however, that of helplessness. Tobiah’s fear, explicitly manifested later (v.15), is a serious impediment which the angel will have to handle in order to bring about the divine plan he was sent to fulfill (recall 3:17).

Commentary Relatively far from home (at least one-day’s journey away), in the sole company of his dog and a stranger, lost somewhere by the Tigris river at night, Tobiah is now surprised by a big fish. The restatement of the main character as pre-

278 See Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, I, 169. 279 See BAGD, 563–564. 280 See GELS, 409–410. See also LS, 988; LEH, 352. 281 See HATIS, 70. 282 See WGS, 178. For the sense of exclamo, see OLD, 636.

130 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

sented in v.2a, connects the sequence to the exposition of the episode; of the new place as in v.2d, links it tightly to the previous sequence (strengthening the idea that vv.2cd constitute in fact the exposition of the fish-incident). In relation to those sequences, however, we may notice that two elements are lacking: an information of time (thus presumably to be supposed the same of v.2d) and to the other two personages, the angel and the dog, who although certainly thought to be still present, are left unmentioned. The dog, which in the introductory verse was described as a faithful follower of his master, became since then “invisible” to the eyes of the narrator. The reader may plausibly imagine it accompanying his master downwards to the river shore. The narrator however says nothing explicitly on regard. The logical inference from that narrative situation, therefore, is that Tobiah descends to the river banks alone. Those ellipses serve the narrator to keep the spotlight focused on Tobiah; within few words, also upon the fish; then in Tobiah’s interaction with the angel and the fish. Through his manner of recounting, the narrator first activates the reader’s imaginative “seeing,” which is directed particularly to Tobiah in his descent to the Tigris and there to the leap up of the big fish (vv.3ab). Through Tobiah’s shout out of fear and need (v.3c), the reader’s imaginative hearing is then triggered, indispensable for his involvement with the story through the next sequence (the angel’s instructive interaction with Tobiah). From the point of view of knowledge, v.3 puts the reader at the same level of the character, with the fish appearance becoming a surprise simultaneously for him and for Tobiah. That simultaneity further helps involving the reader with the incident, placing him at Tobiah’s “side” or even in his place, experiencing the event as if they were Tobiah. From the point of view of plot, verse 3 inserts a complication in the episode, activated by Tobiah’s going down to the river when it was already dark. The narrator explicitly states Tobiah’s purpose for going down to the waters as washing the feet. That description is verisimilar, considering that, after the miles walked, Tobiah certainly would have had his feet, as A Lapide graphically described, “ex itinere fatigatos, ac pulvere et sudore sordidos et olidos.”283 It could also mean that Tobiah looked for some refreshment by bathing his feet in the river. That trivial action becomes the occasion for the appearance of the fish, narrative component that will make such an impact in the plot. Until that moment, the journey had apparently been peaceful and pleasant. Tobiah and the angel, walked “in the same pace,” that is to say, in friendly tuning, and while together, all proceeded smoothly. Taking distance from the angel, the situation is disarranged.

283 See Lapide, Commentarius in Tobiam, 61.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 131

The nocturnal atmosphere wraps Tobiah’s intent (to bathe his feet) with a tint of adventure and a mist of suspense. The atmosphere is in darkness and so dark is also the path towards the river. In light of that, darkness in our scene appears as an intensifier of its complicating nature, one link more of Tobit’s rhetorical chain of the night-motif as discussed before.284 By having Tobiah going down to the waters in that nocturnal setting, the narrator further characterizes young Tobiah, even if with his characteristic sobriety, as a still childish, naïve and in a sense adventure-searching character. The narrator in fact continues referring to him as “the lad.” Moreover, his mode of recounting of v.3 (“showing”) allows Tobiah himself to disclose the features implied in his appellative as “the lad.” Tobiah’s immaturity and insecurity is underlined also by the narrator’s concluding remark of his reaction before the fish. In fact, instead of described courageously fighting to conquer the unexpected creature, he is referred to as (fearfully) screaming at the fish’s sight. Only by the angel’s words, Tobiah is endowed with valor to overpower the potential enemy. Raphael in that moment is made opaque by the narrator, discreetly suggesting the angel’s conscious acquaintance with Tobiah’s initiative. That acquaintance hints to purposefulness. The big fish, referred to as leaping up from the waters, could be seen as merely searching for food. Nevertheless, the manner in which it is recounted in GII (through participle + conative imperfect) is interpreted by the narrator as an intent of swallowing Tobiah’s foot. In fact, for the scene’s realism considering the later significant slowdown of the process through the angel’s words, the manner of recounting had to imply a continued intent of the fish until Tobiah, empowered by the angel’s words, is able to catch it. Although the verbal choice in referring the fish’s intent appears exaggerated (swallowing), through that means, the narrator not only intensifies the scene’s tension but in fact turns the fish’s action into a sort of attack. As noted before, the adjective “big,” serves in a special manner to activate the intertextual connection of Tobit’s fish-incident with Jonah’s. The ideological web of that popular “fish” story then, serves as a background for a deeper understanding of Tobiah’s encounter with the fish. Last, in light of the elements just presented and considering the narrator’s conciseness in his description of Tob 6:3, it seems important to avoid extrapolations regarding Tobiah’s interaction with the fish. The narrator’s portrayal of it occupies merely that brief text. For the lad to have caught by hand a fish of relatively big size, some struggle is off course verisimilarly to be expected. In Claudel’s drama, Tobiah is even submerged by the big fish into the “entrails

284 See p. 101–102.

132 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

of the waters” (thus a true water battle).285 Such interpretation, however, is the result of artistic hermeneutics. Fact is that the narrator expands not in the minimum on it, thus signaling that the emphasis of the scene does not fall in the “battling” and adventurous element. Also supports such view the contrast between narrating and narrated time. From the company’s arrival to the Tigris, to the lad’s going down, to the fish appearance, a no despicable amount of time seems needed. Such narrated time is referred merely through the few words of v.3a. Such manner of recounting, brings about a narrative speed up towards the core of the fish incident (vv.4–6). The fish leaping up is only momentaneously spotted.

3.2.6 Raphael, Tobiah and The Fish (vv.4–6)

Exegesis 3.2.6.1 Note on the Literary Structure of the Section Tobiah’s first interaction with Raphael in vv.4–6a, brought about by the fish appearance, also presents signs of a designed composition. We detect in the section three literary conventions. By means of repeating the introductory phrase “and the angel said to the lad” in inverse order (thus καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος τῷ παιδαρίῳ εἶπεν in v.4a and καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἄγγελος in v.5a) a chiasmus is produced. Although as it appears mostly for stylistics purposes (and maybe merely the result of GII translating/editorial work) that structure however performs a triple effect. The substitution of τῷ παιδαρίῳ by αὐτῷ in the second phrase highlights the subject ὁ ἄγγελος to the reader. By mirroring verb εἶπεν, the sequence enucleates it as the sole angel’s action in the scene (important for the characterization of Raphael). By anticipating the addressee even if in cryptic form, the sequence tightens its link to the previous sentence (Tobiah’s fulfillment of the angel’s first instruction) reinforcing its unity. In vv.4–6a we may notice the use of the utterance-implementation pattern, already referred to in the introduction of this chapter. Through that convention, the narrator manifests his fondness in highlighting to the reader, Tobiah’s

285 In his dialogue with the angel, in the beginning of scene V of act II, Tobiah in fact states: “Ah, cette fois, cette fois, j’ai bien cru que c’etait fini! Le poisson, le poisson violent, il m’a entrainé jusqu’au fond de ce grand fleuve, les entrailles du Tigre, là où on ne sait plus si c’est de l’eau ou de la boue pour vous étouffer! Mourir, mourir, j’allais mourir…” See Claudel, L’histoire de Tobie et de Sara, Acte II, Scène V, 52.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 133

Table 3.6: Literary structure of Tob 6:5. A: καὶ ἔξελε τὴν χολὴν καὶ τὴν καρδίαν καὶ τὸ ἧπαρ αὐτοʋ˜ B: καὶ ἀπόθες αʋ᾽τὰ μετὰ σαʋτοʋ˜ καὶ τὰ ἔγκατα ἔκβαλε· ἔστιν γὰρ εἰς φάρμακον χρήσιμον A’: ἡ χολὴ καὶ ἡ καρδία καὶ τὸ ἧπαρ αὐτοʋ˜

behavior before the angel’s commands. Furthermore, the pattern focalizes the scene in the interaction between Tobiah and the angel, diverting it from the appearance of the fish per se. Noteworthy, we have a double imperative in the command of vv.4a.5a with a single constative aorist in its implementation in vv. 4b.6a, respectively. Lastly we notice also a triple repetition of the fish-organs’ sequence (gall-heart-liver, in this order) in the end of vv. 5ab-6a. That repetition represents from the point of view of the narrative rhetoric, a case of “epiphora,”286 that serves the narrator to insist purposefully on that motif, of tremendous significance for the plot resolution (the dominant theme of the episode’s next sequence) as repeatedly noticed. Moreover, its repetition in vv.5ab shapes the sequence in ABA’ pattern, having members [A] and [A’] including the fish-organs’ sequence + 3ms pronoun enclosing in member [B], the angel’s twofold instruction + the γάρ clause explaining the medicinal value of the fish organs. The throwing of the entrails underscores the keeping of the fish organs by contrast and the γάρ clause, by unbalancing syntactically the structure, gets highlighted. Table 3.6 below represents graphically such literary articulation:

3.2.7 The Angel’s First Command to the Lad (v.4a) ̓ 3.2.7.1 Επιλαβοʋ ˜ /ἐγκρατὴς γενοʋ˜ The angel’s first command to Tobiah, is expressed with aorist imperative from ἐπιλαμβάνω / ἐπιλαμβάνομαι,287 “to seize, to lay hold of someone or something.” Significantly well attested in the LXX, it renders mostly Hebrew ‫אחז‬

286 Repetition of a word or phrase in the end of successive clauses. See in that regard, Aletti, et al., Vocabulaire, 95. 287 See LEH, 230; LS, 542; LSSup., 247 catalogues the verb in its active form; Muraoka catalogues it as deponent. See GELS, 275.

134 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

(Aramaic ‫)אחד‬.288 To that first imperative, GII has a second one,289 construed through a verbal phrase with adjective (ἐγκρατής + γίνομαι). Rare in the LXX, the construction occurs only another six times.290 In classical Greek, the adjective has also the meaning of “strong, vigorous” (as in Sophocles, Oedip.R. 142–143). Muraoka renders it as “to overpower.”291 In a more literal manner, that imperative construction may be rendered as, “become dominator of (the fish).”292 In light of that, the idea of “struggle” and “conquest” may be discreetly inferred. Furthermore, the two imperatives in our text appear to be in complementary relationship (not merely synonymic). Each, in its own manner, describe in a crescendo Tobiah’s empowerment to become the agent of such important conquest. According to Beyer’s reconstruction, remaining of 4Q197 would witness to a double verbal usage in the angel’s injunction regarding the seizing of the fish, thus supporting the reading of GII.293

3.2.8 Tobiah Overpowers the Big Fish (v.4b) 3.2.8.1 Κρατέω Reporting Tobiah’s fulfilment of Raphael’s enjoinment, v.4b notably uses only one verb (κρατέω). In the LXX, κρατέω and derived forms, often translating Hebrew ‫( חזק‬Aramaic ‫)תקף‬, conveys the idea of “laying hold of, grasping, having or gaining control over.” As it immediately stands out, the initial resultant verbal statement (present in both GI and GII), is linked by its root-idea, to the second

288 For instance in Gen 25:26; Exod 4:4; Deut 9:17; Judg 12:6; 2 Sam 13:11; Ps 34:2. See HATIS, 47. 289 OL witnesses transmit also a double imperative for the verse, which may indicate its presence in the OG and through it in the Semitic Vorlage. 290 In its triple occurrence in 2 Maccabees (8:30; 10:17; 13:13), it refers to the taking over of places by the Maccabean army. In Susanna 1:39 (Th), the phrase reports the old folks’ inability to seize the woman’s supposed partner. In Sir 6:27, it forms part of the father’s enjoinment to a son to hold fast to Wisdom (not letting her escape). Sir 6:27 (LXX) the father explicitly exhorts the son through a series of verbs to seek wisdom and at once to take fast hold of her (ἐγκρατὴς γενόμενος) do not let her go away (μὴ ἀφῇς αὐτήν). Hebrew Sirach transmits the verse thus: ‫( דרש וחקר בקש ומצא והחזקתה ואל תרפה‬MS A 2r:26). Another occurrence is found in Wis 8:21 with verb εἰμί (γνοὺς δὲ ὅτι οὐκ ἄλλως ἔσομαι ἐγκρατής), with the meaning of “taking possession of (wisdom).” 291 See GELS, 188. 292 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 206; See also Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, I, 772–773. 293 ‫]ואמר מלאכא לעלימא אחד ו[תקף נ]ונא וא[חד עלימא ]נונא ותקפה ואנפ[קה ליבשא‬. See Beyer, ATTM II , 178. See also WGS, 369.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 135

imperative of the previous verse, with the effect of tightening the link between sentences conjoined merely by a καί. 3.2.8.2 Ἀναφέρω In light of the majority of its occurrences in the LXX (as part of the vocabulary of sacrifices),294 the use of ἀναφέρω to describe Tobiah’s dragging the fish up to the river’s bank in v.4b at first glance appears peculiar. However, from its root meaning295 and also in some of its occurrences in the LXX, the verb describes here merely a mechanical action (thus “to take to a higher position, to carry up”). The translator’s choice appears creative, considering Tobiah’s movement downwards of v.3 and his return up (to the lodging place) carrying along his invaluable conquest (another manner of emphasizing it). Remains of 4Q197 witness to ‫ נפק‬as Semitic background of ἀναφέρω. Finally, both aorist ἐκράτησεν and ἀνήνεγκεν seem used in the phrase with a constative sense296 indicating the positive result of Tobiah’s performance. Their logical consequentiality stands for that of cause and effect (the fish’s overpowering and dragging up to dry land becoming the evident sign of Tobiah’s conquest of it).

3.2.9 The Angel’s Second Command (v.5a) 3.2.9.1 Ἀνασχίζω The long period of v.5a refers in direct speech, through four aorist imperatives, Azariah’s instructions to Tobiah regarding the just caught fish. The first imperative in GII conveys a quite straightforward action (to slit the fish) with a rather refined verb. While σχίζω (“to split, to cleave, to tear”)297 have some occurrences in the LXX,298 verb ἀνασχίζω meaning “to rip up, to slit” occurs only once more in Am 1:13 (rendering Hebrew ‫ בקע‬/ Aramaic ‫בזע‬,299 referring to the ripping up of a pregnant woman’s womb as a crime of the Ammonites).300 In its attestations in classical Greek, the verb is often used with the technical meaning of “making 294 With several occurrences for instance in Leviticus (translating mostly Hebrew ‫)עלה‬. Noteworthy, verb ἀναφέρω occurs twice in Gen 22 (vv.2.13). See J. Kremer, “ἀναφέρω,” EDNT, 1:94; LS, 125; GELS, 47; HATIS, 10. 295 See Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, II, 1562–1564. 296 See BDF, §332. 297 See Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, II, 1437–1438. 298 Used for instance in Gen 22:3; Ex 14:21; 1 Sm 6:14; Is 36:22; Zac 14:4. See GELS, 666; LEH, 601. 299 Used in Neubauer’s text in 6:5. See WGS, 181. 300 See LS, 122; GELS, 46; LEH, 44; HATIS, 10.

136 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

an incision” in order to reach an inner part (of a body), thus occurring in some medical treatises or text alike.301 ̓ 3.2.9.2 Εξαιρέω The second imperative, from ἐξαιρέω, in its narrative context with well-defined contours (directing Tobiah the removing, setting apart, of some of the fish organs immediately named), also appears refined. The exact same form (aorist active imperative) is found twice only in the NT, in Jesus’ logion about plucking out one’s eye or cutting off one’s hand if they lead to scandal (See Mt 5:29; 18:9). In the LXX, although well attested,302 ἐξαιρέω however translates mostly Semitic verbs whose semantic field implies the idea of deliverance (in several cases with God as subject).303 It is in its classical usage that the verb conveys generally the more basic idea of “taking out.”304 OL rendering of that idea with exintera (“eviscerate”) interprets quite sharply the sense of ἐξαιρέω in v.5a. 3.2.9.3 Ἀποτίθημι Finally, GII imperative from ἀποτίθημι305 used in the angel’s last command (of sparing or keeping safe, the fish organs just specified), although clear in its sense appears also peculiar. In the LXX the verb has few occurrences, mostly with this pattern: imperative + direct object (with accusative) + complement of place (thus “to put or place before, at, in”).306 Its main idea is that of “placing, setting apart, putting into custody (thus to imprison) or storage.” The Hebrew adjacent in most 301 See LS, 122; Hippocrates, De mulierum affectibus, I–III, Section 230, line 23; De superfetatione, Section 7, line 7; Ctesias Hist., Med., Fragmenta Volume-Jacoby -F 3c, 688, F, Fragment 1b, line 551; Aristoteles, Hist. Animalium, 577a, Line 5; 580b, Line 30. The verb continued to be used with that specific sense also in the time of the NT (see for example Dioscorides Pedanius, De materia medica, 2, 22, 1, 2; 49, 1,1; 64, 1, 4; Euporista vel De simplicibus medicinis, 21, 1, 2) and after (for example, during the time of Emperor Julian, the Apostate, see Oribasius, Eclogae medicamentorum, 118, 2, 3); during the Byzantine period, see for instance, Aëtius Med., Iatricorum, Liber XIII, 23, 35; XVI, 3, 69. 302 According to Lust, the verb is attested 155 times. See LEH, 209. 303 In MT the verb translates quite consistently Hebrew ‫[ נצל‬e.g. Gen 32:12; Exod 3:8; 18:4; Judg 10:15; 1 Sam 12:10; 14:48; 30:8; 2 Sam 14:6; 23:12; Ps 59:2 (58 LXX); 140:2 (139 LXX)] in some cases also ‫[ ישע‬as in Josh 10:6] and ‫[ מלט‬as in 1 Kgs 1:12; Ps 30:2]. 304 See LS 581. Herodotus uses the related noun ἐξαίρεσις, meaning the taking out a victim’s entrails. See Hist. 2:40. Although no etymology is proposed for its root meaning (αἱρέω), it appears to be that of “to take, grasp, seize,” med. “to take for oneself, choose.” See Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, I, 42. 305 See LS, 223; GELS, 86; LEH, 76–77; Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, II, 1482–1483. 306 See Exod 16:33–34; Lev 24:12; Num 15:34; Josh 4:8; 2 Chr 18:26; 1 Macc 4:46.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 137

cases is ‫( נוח‬hiph.) but also ‫ נתן‬and ‫שים‬.307 GII’s construction with preposition μετά is unique to Tob 6:5. In light of the oldest Semitic evidence,308 the construction appears Semitizing, reflecting in a particular manner its Hebrew/Aramaic Vorlage. GII’s last imperative regarding the entrails’ throwing out, witnessed also by OL, is partly preserved in 4Q197.309

3.2.10 “For They Are of Medicinal Value” (v.5b) 3.2.10.1 Ε΄̓ στιν γὰρ εἰς Of significantly different literary feature appears the angel’s final statement to Tobiah. After having carefully guided the lad through an almost “chirurgical” procedure regarding the fish, although the lad asked nothing about the actions just completed, the angel goes on justifying him the importance of the fish’s spared organs, expressed in GII through a γάρ clause (GI omits the whole sentence). ἔστιν γάρ is the usual LXX rendering of a Hebrew ‫ כי‬clause (Targumic Aramaic frequent ‫ ארי‬equivalent),310 in its various meanings. Through the γάρ clause of v.5b, the angel justifies Tobiah the reason for his instruction regarding the fish’s organs. In the phrase a predicate nominative would be expected as a complement object but instead a construction εἰς + predicate accusative takes its place, seemingly as the result of Semitic influence (via use of preposition ‫ ל‬+ predicate accusative).311 Noteworthy, in several cases, regarding the usage of ἀποτίθημι in the LXX, mentioned in the previous paragraph, a purpose clause construed with εἰς + predicate accusative is found. 3.2.10.2 Φάρμακον The noun φάρμακον in the sentence is peculiar, considering its little use and mostly negative sense found in the LXX. In classical Greek, the noun may signify positively a healing remedy but also totally the contrary (thus “poison”), as well as an enchanted potion, hence “charm, spell” (thus becoming part of the vocabulary of magic and witchcraft).312 Occurring only 7x in the Greek OT outside the Sinaiticus of Tobit,313 the term assumes mostly the negative meaning “poison” 307 See HATIS, 16. 308 See 4Q197 (4 i 7): ‫( שים ב[ידך‬DJD); ‫( וטרהון ב[ידך‬Beyer). 309 See Beyer, ATTM II , 178. 310 See Beyer, ATTM II , 178. 311 See BDF, §145. For the predicate accusative with εἰς, see BDF §157 (5). 312 See LS 1917 Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, II, 1554. 313 The term does not occur in GI.

138 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

(as in Wis 1:14) or the polemic connotation as “sorcery” (as in 2 Kgs 9:22; Mic 5:11; Nah 3:4 (2x) [LXX]).314 Exceptions to that situation are its two occurrences in the Wisdom of Ben Sira, where φάρμακον is used with the sense of “medicine, remedy,” not only positively (See 6:16) but even in relation to the LORD, who is affirmed to be its creator (See 38:4).315 In Tobit, the term φάρμακον occurs for the first time in 2:10. Although apparently with the positive meaning of “medicine, remedy,” Tobit seems to use with a refined polemic tone (stating their inefficacy in healing his blindness).316 After its double occurrence in our section (Tobiah repeats it in his question to Azariah in 6:7), the term is then restated to Tobiah by Raphael in 11:8 and then by the narrator in 11:11 (referring Tobiah’s appliance of the gall into Tobit’s eyes). 3.2.10.3 Χρήσιμος Clear in its sense in v.5b, meaning “useful, beneficial, profitable,” the adjective χρήσι- μος however, is also of limited use in the LXX. While well attested in classical Greek,317 the adjective occurs in the LXX only thirteen times318 extra its two occurrences in Tobit (the adjective first occurs in Sarah’s interior dialogue in 3:10 + 1x in Tob 4:18 GI).319 Its use in our text, serves the narrator to put another step in the revelatory process of the narrative, besides being the activating element of the next scene (Tobiah’s question about the fish organs restates verbatim that adjectival construction).

3.2.11 Tobiah Faithfully Gathers the Instructed Fish Organs (v.6a) 3.2.11.1 Συνάγω In the second narrative report of Tobiah’s execution of the angelic instructions (v.6a), noteworthy is the use of verb συνάγω instead of and in parallel to

314 In the NT, the term occurs only once, with the same negative sense of sorcery, in Rev 9:21. 315 See in that regard L. Mazzinghi, “«Poi fa’ posto al medico perché ti è necessario (Sir 38,1–15)»”, PSV 40 (1999) 65–74. 316 See in that regard M. Chrysovergi, “Contrasting Views on Physicians in Tobit and Sirach”, JSP 21/1 (2011) 37–54. 317 See LS, 2006. 318 Gen 37:26; 2 Macc 12:12; Prov 17:17; Wis 4:3; 8:7; 13:11; Sir 7:22; 10:4; 13:4; Zech 6:10.14; EpJ 1:58 and Ezek 15:4. The adjective also occurs once in the prologue of Sirach (v.5). 319 The adjective is attested also in Tob 4:18 witnessed by MS 319 (partial GII witness), lacking in S (within the first of its two major gaps). See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 4–5; For the text of MS 319 in that section, see Littman, Tobit, 12.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 139

ἀποτίθημι used in the command. In the LXX, συνάγω (“to bring together, gather, assemble”)320 translates a vast semantic range of Hebrew terms in MT, which goes beyond its basic content in Greek.321 While the verb for the command expresses the purposeful nuance of safekeeping (whose reason was explicated by the angel through the γάρ sentence of the previous verse), the translator’s statement of its realization with συνάγω, refers Tobiah’s mere “recollection” of them. Such verbal change may possibly be merely for stylistic purposes on behalf of the translator (although συνάγω and ἀποτίθημι intersect semantically only peripherally). Without drawing too much conclusion from translated terms, especially without having Semitic evidence for comparison, that word change could suggest once more the translator’s interpretive work, expressing Tobiah’s faithful fulfillment of the angel’s instructions, quite mechanically. The exact repetition of the sequence gall-heart-liver in v.6a, third time in the section, is again noteworthy.

3.2.12 Cooking and Eating of the Fish (v.6b) 3.2.12.1 Text Critical Note With respect to other main witnesses, v.6b presents the peculiarity of transmitting its main verbs of cooking and eating (ὤπτησεν /ἔφαγεν) in singular, thus referring to Tobiah alone (GI has the verbs in plural; OL majority text omits verb “to eat”322 With respect to act of cooking the fish, it appears irrelevant whether Tobiah broiled it alone or with Azariah’s help; not however regarding the fish’s eating. In his farewell address, Raphael affirms in both GI and GII readings, to have eaten only in appearance (see 12:19), but in any case to have eaten (the contrary would have appeared rather awkward at a narrative level, considering his human statute within the story up to his self-revelation in Tob 12). The rationale for the plural forms of GI and OL therefore could be narrative coherence with the angel’s very statement there. With respect to GII however its singular not necessarily affirms that Azariah did not eat. It may simply be the result of the narrator’s interest in keeping the reader’s attention on Tobiah. Furthermore, the singular of verb ἐσθίω in GII seems supported by two Aramaic fragments (4Q196 13:1: ‫ואכ[ל‬ /4Q197 4 i 9–11: ‫)ואכל‬.

320 See GELS, 650–651; LS, 1691; LEH, 585–586. 321 See HATIS, 112. 322 MS W, as noted in our critical text reads plural for verb manduco (manducaverunt). See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 207; See WGS, 182; Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 206–208.

140 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

3.2.12.2 O̓ πτάω We may notice that GII uses a refined verb recounting Tobiah’s cooking of the fish. Rare in the LXX,323 verb ὀπτάω in classical usage describes meat cooking directly on fire or through dry heat (thus “roasting,” as opposed to for instance boiling in water [ἕψω]).324 The translation in GII is sharp in its adverbial use of the articulated partitive genitive τοῦ ἰχθύος,325 considering also the passage’s last phrase (about the sparing of the fish meat in salt).

3.2.13 The Salting from the Fish for the Way (v.6c) 3.2.13.1 Text Critical Note With respect to v.6c, both Qumran fragments mentioned above preserve, at least in one of them, clearly legible, the phrase “for the way” (4Q197 13:1: ‫ )לאורחא‬complementing the idea of “salting.” Although also mentioning that phrase, OL conveys another narrative description for its place in the verse.326 Neubauer’s Aramaic, although referring to the “road,” transmits a reading with the complete opposite sense (‫ ומותרא שבק באורחא‬/ “the rest he (from the context clearly Tobiah) abandoned in the road”).327 Curiously, the verb ‫ שבק‬used in A5, corresponds significantly to the ideas expressed through the Greek ἀφίημι of GII.328 With respect to the verbs of cooking and eating in v.6b, considering the support of Q and our understanding of their non necessary exclusion of Raphael in their sense, we accepted the readings of GII as such. Considering also the Aramaic texts’ support together with that of OL to the phrase “for the way” (which explains the partial purpose of the salting329), we incorporated it in our translation and interpretation of the text.

323 In which the verb occurs only 7x outside Tobit’s use here (as well as in GI). See Gen 11:3; Deut 16:7; 1 Sam 2:15; 2 Chr 35:13; 1 Ezra 1:13; Isa 44:16.19. 324 See LS, 1242; GELS, 501; LEH, 442. 325 See BDF, §169. 326 et partem piscis assauerunt et tulerunt in uia, cetera autem salierunt. See WGS, 182. 327 See WGS, 183. 328 See HATIS 359. Neubauer’s text presents also other oddities regarding our passage, as for instance, when it states regarding v.3, that the fish came out of the river and consumed the youth’s food! See WGS, 179; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 205. 329 Although the travel of Tob 6 is to be thought a non-realistic imaginary travel, it does however mix in its recounting realistic elements. The fish emerges as a rather important conquest and so, salting it for the way, was a manner of preserving its announced healing organs but also keeping its meat for food (considering in real basis the length of such travel).

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 141

3.2.13.2 Ἀφίημι GII use of verb ἀφίημι in v.6c is rather peculiar. In the LXX as well as in classical Greek, ἀφίημι covers a relatively varied semantic range,330 but mostly conveying the idea of “acquitting, forgiving, remitting, setting free” or “neglecting, abandoning, getting rid of,” implying some sort of moral aspect in its usage.331 At first glance, in light of that, verb ἀφίημι may appear misused here (GI in fact omits it). In any case, the sense of “setting aside” as rendered by Fitzmyer, appears fitting with its semantic range.332 The implied subject of verb ἀφίημι appears clearly from the context to be Tobiah. Clear is also its object, construed by means of the prepositional phrase ἐξ + a partitive genitive.333 Its pronoun αὐτοῦ still recalls the object “fish” from the previous phrases of the period (τὸν ἰχθὺν [v.6a] / τοῦ ἰχθύος [v.6b]). The narrator just stated that Tobiah had roasted part of the fish and eaten it (v.6b). Since the fish was qualified as “big” in v.3, it is more than verisimilar that some information would be expected regarding the “left overs” of such a valuable item. The use of ἀφίημι on behalf of the translator of GII, thus, may be seen not the result of a wrong word choice, but finally, a refined selection, functional to the narrative description conveyed by text. The rest of the big fish (and also its organs?), in order to be preserved from corruption during the journey, must have passed through some sort of procedure (cooking, smoking or simply salting). 3.2.13.3 Ἀλίζω Verb ἁλίζω, “to salt,” is rare both in the LXX and in classical Greek.334 Its participial use (ἡλισμένον) in GII demands some observations. We may notice that there is a problem of agreement between the participle and its immediate referent (αὐτοῦ). That it refers to the fish seems clear, having the prepositional phrase ἐξ αὐτοῦ with partitive sense recalling the partitive genitive τοῦ ἰχθύος of v.6b. Since it follows the object, the participle appears at first glance used attributively. The expected form in that case would be ἡλισμένου. Considering its actual form (nominative/accusative neutral singular), the participle ἡλισμένον appears to be used predicatively in relation to the subject τὸ παιδάριον. In that sense, its use in v.6c 330 Compare for example Gen 18:26; 20:26; 35:18 and 45:2. 331 See GELS, 107; LEH, 97. 332 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 207. 333 On the partitive genitive used as object, see BDF, §164. 334 In the LXX, the verb occurs only twice extra its occurrence in Tob 6:6c. See Lev 2:13; Ezek 16:4; GELS, 26; LEH, 65. Salting as a means of preservation from decay was a spread out practice in the ancient near East. See in that regard Moore, Tobit, 200–201; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 207; D. Potts, “On Salt and Salt Gathering in Ancient Mesopotamia”, JESHO 27/3 (1984) 225–271.

142 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

complements Tobiah’s action conveyed through verb ἀφίημι. A precise rendering of v. 6c then is conveyed in this line: “He also spared from the fish by having salted it.” Fitzmyer: “(the rest of it) he salted and put aside”335; NAB (Di Lella’s translation): “the rest he salted and kept for the journey.” The NRSV rendering, “and kept some to be salted” as well as Ego’s in her commentary, in light of the previous argumentation, appear awkward.336 Regarding food-salting and particularly of fish salting, Babylonian Talmud states in the context of the keeping of female Leviathan’s flesh in salt for the Messianic eschatological banquet of the righteous, that “female fish preserved in salt is tastier” and that “salted fish is palatable, salted flesh is not” (see Baba Bathra 74b). In such context, Rabbi Judah also affirms that “fishes are dissolute.” Furthermore, in Graeco-Roman world, salt like the fish was considered aphrodisiac and thus also associated with fertility and sexuality.337 The salting element of our narration, therefore, trivial as it may appear, could potentially be a further element used by Tobit’s narrator to emphasize at the level of its narrative rhetoric, the sexual connotations of the episode.

3.2.14 Quinary Scheme Applied to Tob 6:2–6c With respect to plot, it is worthy highlighting the skillfulness with which the narrator articulates the fish-incident as a whole. Applying Larivaille’s “quinaryscheme” as canon,338 Tobit’s fish incident results in a round micro-narrative, well delimited and articulated, with all components of a good plot present in it. That formal evidence substantiates our idea of the stylized feature of Tob 6 as a whole and of the fish-incident in particular: Table 3.7: Quinary scheme applied to Tob 6:2–6c. 1. Initial Situation [v.2] 2. Complication [v.3] 3. Transforming Action [vv.4–6a] 4. Denouement [v.6b] 5. Final Situation [vv.6c]

335 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 200. 336 „um es zu salten“. See Ego, Buch Tobit, 961. 337 See Kant, Interpretation of Religious Symbols, I, 298.301.351; II, 457–460. 338 Having refined the Aristotelian model for evaluating a plot, P. Larivaille proposed a structural model in five elements. See P. Larivaille, “L’analyse (morpho)logique du récit”, Poétique 19 (1974) 368–388; See also Marguerat, – Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 43–49.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 143

The episode begins with a stable and harmonic situation in its drama-feature. Tobiah is in tune with the angel and they move along peacefully (vv.2ab). Surprised by night, still by the Tigris’ banks, the company’s staying overnight in such an intriguing scenario forecasts some upcoming complication (vv.2cd). The initial harmony is in fact disturbed with Tobiah’s descent to the river and his encounter with the big fish (v.3). The angel’s words empower him to catch the attacking fish and subdue it (narratively stressed through Tobiah dragging to dry land, slitting it and cooking of the devouring fish). Tobiah’s actions (vv.4–6a) mark the transformation of the negative situation into a positive one (v.6b). Finally, Tobiah’s carrying along part of the conquered fish in salt for the journey (v.6c), stresses the happy end of the initial turmoil. Nothing idle in the composition; even the smallest details appear narratively significant both at level of story and discourse.

Commentary In Tob 6:4–6, Raphael’s performance and Tobiah’s operating regarding the fish are spotted. The narrator’s final remark in v.3, of Tobiah’s reaction before the big fish becomes the “detonator” of the sequence. With respect of “time,” in contrast with the fish’s appearance in v.3b (swift and dynamic), Raphael’s commands create a noticeable slackening in the narrative tempo, specially caused through the narrator’s use of the utterance-fulfillment pattern, repetitive and verbose in its feature.339 That alternation (speed up-slowdown) serves breaking monotony and helps to emphasize the incident’s focalization (Tobiah’s prompt execution of his divine-human interlocutor’s commands and his various actions regarding the fish as a result of that). Although narratively significant in it, through his manner of recounting the narrator is able to turn the fish opaque when Raphael begins speaking. All of Tobiah’s actions are directed to it; by means of the “utteranceimplementation” pattern, Raphael is brought also to the foreground interacting with Tobiah regarding the fish. Nevertheless, by having Tobiah subject of a remarkable number of actions, which from v.3 occur in almost breathless sequence (going down, washing, shouting, overpowering, dragging up, slitting, ingathering, broiling, eating, sparing and salting) the narrator is able to turn also the angel opaque. Such manner of recounting intensifies the focalization: the narrator wants the reader to focus his attention upon Tobiah. The narrator’s voice in 339 Mere narrative realism, in fact, would perhaps have demanded quick expressions like, “The angel shouted: ‘Catch it!’” In GI, in fact, the angel’s first command has only one imperative in 6:4 (ἐπιλαβοῦ τοῦ ἰχθύος) and Tobiah’s fulfillment of Azariah’s second instructions is summarized in 6:5 (καὶ ἐποίησεν τὸ παιδάριον ὡς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἄγγελος).

144 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

fact is particularly audible in it. His interventions mostly concentrate in recounting Tobiah’s actions regarding the fish, through which he is further characterized. The narrator seems fond of emphasizing Tobiah’s exact fulfillment of the angel’s instructions. All actions in the scene relate in one way or the other to the fish, implicating both Tobiah and the angel with it. However, whereas of the fish the narrator recounts at least two actions (“leaping up” and “[intend to] devouring”), of Azariah-Raphael, he mentions none other than speaking. He is in fact mediator of word, of knowledge, a sort of spokesperson, “ambassador” of the Lord of Heaven.340 It is peculiar that at Tobiah’s shout out of fear and help,341 his travel companion and hired guide (his statute within the world of the narration), instead of coming to his aid, merely talks. Due to that, Raphael’s presence in the scene becomes almost “invisible,” an authoritative voice, directing Tobiah towards the fish and regarding the fish (another means to reinforce the focalization).342 The idea of “medicine,” in the mouth of one whose name means “God-heals” is cogent. The term “medicine” in v.5b, echoing Tobit’s mention of it in 2:10, forms an inclusion, connecting the fish particularly with his healing. Such connection intensifies the “gap” dynamics in the end of 6:7–9 (discussed later). Moreover, Raphael’s statements regarding the fish and its medicinal value, not only suggests his superior knowledge regarding created things, but also the incident as part of an orchestrated plan. Formally considered, Raphael’s words add a further link to the revelatory process of the episode’s plot, continuing to unveil the concrete manner in which the announced healings (recall 3:16–17) will be brought about (interestingly involving Tobiah ever more with it). The narrator’s referral of

340 See in that regard A. H. M. Evans, “Angelic Mediation in the Book of Tobit: A Shift in the Deuteronomic Paradigm?”, Construction, Coherence and Connotations. Studies on the Septuagint, Apocryphal and Cognate Literature (ed. P. J. Jordaan  – N. P. L. Allen) (DCLS 34; 2016) 133– 148. 341 OL (L3) as well as the Vg, refers Tobiah explicitly asking for help, through the phrase, “Sir, a fish attacks me!” See WGS, 178; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 205. 342 Considering the primary meaning of the term ἄγγελος as “messenger,” used in the Greek OT for both human and divine couriers (See W. Grundmann – G. Von Rad, “ἄγγελος,” TDNT, I  74–80) by repeating such appellative regarding Raphael, the narrator not only stresses the reader his divine origin and true identity, but also his main work in the story as the plot unfolds: instructing as well as mediating. Raphael’s function in the story will be primarily that of instructing Tobiah and preparing him for the tasks that corresponded in the healing processes. See Nowell, NarrativeTechnique and Theology, 148; I. Nowell, “The “work” of Archangel Raphael”, Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings. Origins, Development and Reception (ed. F. V. Reiterer – T. Nicklas – K. Schöpflin) (DCLY 2007; Berlin – New York 2007) 227–253; C. Vialle, “Ange et compagnon de route: le personnage de Raphaël dans le livre de Tobie (texte court)”, EThR 89/2 (2014) 145–156.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 145

Tobiah as “the lad” in relation to Azariah/Raphael as “the angel,”343 formally considered, turns the interaction between the two, in terms of “young person – divine envoy.” The supernatural origin of the speaker and thus his authority, may have been particularly instructive in the eyes of pious readers.344175 In that regard, a teaching on obedience may also be inferred in it. Considering however that at the level of the story, Tobiah is executing the instructions merely of Azariah, a fellow Israelite, the reader might rightly ask: why Tobiah follows so promptly Azariah’s directions, being merely his travel companion? Although bearing a name which means “the LORD is good,” the narrator says nothing about Tobiah’s religious piety until the marriage night (see 8:4-9). Since his first appearance in the story, Tobiah is characterized as a docile executor of directives or a recipient of instructions. Noteworthy, both features only with respect to his father. The summary of his behavior up to the travel account, in fact, the narrator allows Tobiah himself to state in 5:1. Tobiah is thus presented to the reader as an obedient son. Those features allow us to sustain that the narrator seems fond characterizing Tobiah especially through and regarding his relationship with his father Tobit. Until the return scene in fact (Tob 11:9), the narrator recounts no interaction of Tobiah with his mother (it is the father who in 4:3–4 enjoins Tobiah to have towards her a filial attitude). Tobiah’s interaction uniquely with the father and the manner the narrator stresses it, substantiates our initial statement. Moreover, such characterological depiction, allows us to affirm, in modern terms, that Tobiah, Tobit’s only son, emerges as an “overprotected” son, with the positive and negative aspects of that existential situation. Such narrative datum, on the background of Tob 5:1, becomes in our view a key element to understand Azariah’s authority regarding Tobiah in the fish incident, with a resonance during the rest of the travel story. Tobiah’s unquestioned fulfillment of his companions instructions in 6:4–6c, suggests Tobiah’s childlike submission before his father being replicated before his travel companion. As regarding God, the angel seems to represent a sort of alter ego of Him, a visible face of His hidden presence in the story (see 6:16ab); in relation to Tobit, Azariah seems to represent for Tobiah in the context of the travel, Tobit’s paternal, (over)protective and authoritative presence. Such interpretation may account for the effect Azariah’s first words (to catch the fish) produce in Tobiah in such narrative circumstances. Far from depicted as a courageous hero who fights a monster of the deep, Tobiah is described vulnerable

343 Nowell highlighted the fact that in the narrator’s mouth, Raphael is never addressed directly by his disguise-name (Azariah), but by either his real name or his functional one (“the angel”). See Nowell, Narrative Technique and Theology, 172–173. 344 See Di Lella, “The Book of Tobit and the Book of Judges”, 199–200, 203–204.

146 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

in his fearfulness (pace Moore).345 Fear in effect is an emotional state that either paralyzes or produces centrifugal movement (never centripetal). Through Azariah’s words, Tobiah instead is empowered with courage to face and overcome the unexpected enemy. In technical terms, the angel’s words therefore emerge as not merely “informative” or “directive” but also “performative.” Such process, appears not merely linguistic, but volitive, emotional, psychological.346 Taking a closer look at the mechanism at play in our case in point, we may say that the effectiveness of Azariah’s words to Tobiah stem certainly from the manner they are conveyed (imperative mood), but their will moving power above all derives from the authority they revive in the addressee. In a different manner, if in his first command, Raphael had to work out what Tobiah did not have (at least in that moment) in the second (slitting the fish and gathering some of its organs), the angel plausibly could build upon what Tobiah verisimilarly already possessed (narratively coherent with his being born and grown up near a river). Yet, Tobiah is directed by the angel with remarkable precision. Jacopo Vignali (1592–1664), in his painting Tobias and the Archangel Raphael (Museum of San Marco, Florence), rendered sharply that idea, depicting the fish in the center of the canvass being slit by Tobiah, with his dog watching it at his right side and the angel holding the fish’s fin, in an attitude of directing as well as verifying Tobiah’s performance regarding the precious items (the fish’s organs). Azariah’s role in the fish incident, through his merely directive intervention, assumes the feature of a “paideia.” Letting Tobiah face the peril alone, Tobiah is “trained” to face future threatenings. In that regard, we agree with Jacobs when she argued that in the fish-incident, Tobiah is in a “liminal state” (in anthropological terms), in his transition between childhood and married adulthood. “Monstrous beings are typically associated with such states and the rites of passage that must be undergone for maturation to take place, as well as with

345 According to the author the fish is caught, “thanks to the angel’s knowledge and Tobiah’s courage.” See Moore, Tobit, 199. 346 By performative effect of words, we understand the will-moving power of particular statements. See J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Edited by J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà) (Cambridge, Massachusetts 1975) 1-11-93; E. Coetzer, “Performing Susanna: Speech Acts and Other Performative Elements in Susanna”, Septuagint and Reception. Essays Prepared for the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa (Ed. J. Cook) (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 127; Leiden – Boston, MA 2008) 347–360; S. T. Mann, “‘You’re fired’: An Application of Speech Act Theory to 2 Samuel 15.23—16.14”, JSOT 33/3 (2009) 315–334; S. T. Mann, Run, David, Run! An Investigation of the Theological Speech Acts of David’s Departure and Return (2 Samuel 14–20) (Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures; Winona Lake 2014).

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 147

darkness.”347 Through such dynamics, the narrator emphasizes the maturing process that is taking place regarding Tobiah initiated already with his home departure. It is our view, as repeatedly stated, that such maturating process is necessary for the coherence of the story, considering Tobiah’s notable characterological improvement from chapter 7 onwards and his leading role thenceforth. Such trial, as argued further, not only operates a speed up in Tobiah’s maturation, but prepares him in a creative manner for his free and matured acting in the marriage process. The fish-incident in fact, appears to be a sort of “rehearsal” of that moment. “Arguably, then, Tobiah’s encounter with the fish is the true struggle of the story.”348 Tobiah’s struggle with the big fish at night, prepares him to face the demonic threatening in the marriage chamber, also at night.

3.2.15 Conclusive Remarks on the Fish Incident 3.2.15.1 Tobiah’s Interaction with the Fish: Between Symbolic and Actuality Alonso Schökel criticized Tobit’s fish incident saying that it deserved a more detailed development to be enriched with symbolic values.349 In our view, the narrator indeed enriched Tobiah’s encounter with and actions regarding the fish with creative symbolic values, even if in a sober manner, through the incident’s particular link with Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah. The recognition and authentication of such intratextual link, besides enriching the hermeneutics of the incident as a whole, help us to evaluate on more objective grounds, the various symbolic proposals regarding the fish incident. We have already noted how contrasting symbolic readings of equal elements could be (a case in point being precisely the fish) and that such discrepancy rightly questions the legitimacy

347 See Jacobs, A Commentary on Food and Eating, 158–159; See also N. S. Jacobs, “‘You Did Not Hesitate to Get up and Leave the Dinner’: Food and Eating in the Narrative of Tobit with Some Attention to Tobit’s Shavuot Meal”, The Book of Tobit – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 121–138, 132; The same idea is endorsed by Bonora. See A. Bonora, Tobia: Dio è provvidenza (Comunità degli uomini; Padova 1993) 43. 348 See Jacobs, A Commentary on Food and Eating, 159; Moore, Tobit, 199. 349 (...) “el episodio del pez enorme en el río se prestaba a un desarrollo narrativo más sostenido, que lo enriqueciese con armónicos de valor simbólico. El autor no sabe o no quiere hacerlo, y sigue su línea de ‘domesticación’, ya indicada con la presencia del perro acompañante.” See Alonso Schökel, – Iglesias González, Tobías, 68–69; On the idea of “domestication” (according to Alonso Schökel a positive element in the narrative), see Alonso Schökel, L’arte di raccontare la storia, 133–146.

148 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

and objectivity of such suggestions. Leon-Dufour seems right when he affirmed that, “To speak of the symbolic in exegesis means running into a veritable mine field. Everywhere, you are in danger of finding ‘booby traps’ liable to explode the most solid systematic constructions instantly.”350 On the other hand, Baslez seems right recognizing that “le roman de Tobit se déploie entre symbolique et actualité.”351 Some modern commentators have proposed new symbolic readings of Tobit.352 The complex interplay of form and content in Tob 6,353 supports that possibility. 3.2.15.2 Narrative Setting of the Fish-Incident The narrator’s conjunction of the elements lad-night-river in vv.2cd, as noted before, narratively anticipates a lugubrious outcome for what was about to follow. The elements “night” and “water” inside and outside the universe of biblical traditions, per se and conjoined, are rich of symbolism. “Water” evokes the primeval and primary source of life but also the forces of chaos and thus a hostile element (see Gen 1:2.6; 6:17; 2 Sam 22:17–18; Job 38:30; Ps 69:2.16; 74:15; Ps 124:1–5). “Night” on its part, marks moments of trial and evokes the forces of evil and death. The nocturnal component particularly, as already noted, is of singular importance in Tobit. Around those elements Alonso Schökel saw in the fish incident a distant evocation of the water-trial during the Israelites’ desert journey (see Exo 17:1–7 || Num 20:1–13). The fish lives in the water (beneficial and hostile element), the devil in the desert. The Israelites win over the water-monster and the desert both with the help of the Lord’s angel.354 Nowell for her part read the fish as a symbol of the power of death; the fish evoking the symbolism of water and water monsters signifying chaos and its overpowering, symbolizing creation.355 Also worthy recalling is her sharp insight mentioned before,356 that Tobiah’s journey at a symbolic level is a “journey” from light to darkness and back to light (life in Nineveh  –

350 See X. Leon-Dufour, “Towards a Symbolic Reading of the Fourth Gospel”, NTS 27/4 (1981) 439–456, 439. 351 See Baslez, “Le roman de Tobit”, 38. 352 See Bauckham, “Tobit as Parable”, 140–141; M. D. Kiel, “Tobit’s Theological Blindness”, CBQ 73/2 (2011) 281–98; F. M. Macatangay, “Exile as Metaphor in the Book of Tobit”, Riv Bib 62/2 (2014) 176–192; On the dynamics of symbol and metaphor in discourse, see P. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, Tex 1976) 45–63. 353 See D. A. Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel. The Interplay of Form and Meaning (JSOT.SS 95; Sheffield 1994) 11.27–33. 354 See Alonso Schökel, – Iglesias González, Tobías, 68; See also Moore, Tobit, 199. 355 See Nowell, Narrative Technique and Theology, 319. 356 See p. 101.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 149

double nocturnal threatenings [Tigris  – Ecbatana] – life in Nineveh), which parallels his existential process with that of his father (who also “journeys” from light to darkness and back). Through that process also Tobit’s “journey” assumes the inner feature of a maturing process. 3.2.15.3 Narrator’s Play with Spatial Coordinates Within that setting, the narrator’s play with the spatial coordinates appears also significant.357 Having begun the account at horizontal level resuming Tobiah’s departure through verb ἐξέρχομαι and continuing the company’s movement forward through verb πορεύομαι, the narrator then recounts Tobiah’s moving downwards to the waters of the Tigris (καταβαίνω) and his being surprised by the fish’s moving in the opposite direction (ἀναπηδάω). Noteworthy, a similar play with spatial coordinates is found in the narrator’s account of both Tobit’s and Sarah’s distress. The process that leads Tobit to blindness begins with his leaping up from the table (ἀναπηδήσας) to hide and bury the abandoned strangled body of his fellow Israelite (see 2:4.7). After it Tobit enters his courtyard (εἰσῆλθον) and lays down (ἐκοιμήθην) on the open, where bird’s droppings fall upon his eyes (see 2:9–10).358 With respect to Sarah’s revilement, beginning the account at horizontal level, where the girl is being harshly reviled by one of her father’s maids (see 3:7–9), Sarah then “goes up” (ἀναβᾶσα) into her father’s room with the intention to hang herself (see 3:7–10). Noteworthy, in both GI and GII, Sarah’s return to ground level (a place of darkness for her for being the realm of the envious demon and the place of the tombs of her seven previous suitors) the narrator refers with the same verb used to introduce the fish-incident (κατέβη). Spatial language of descent/ascent contrasting negative/positive situations, links in our view, particularly the accounts of Sarah’s distress and Tobiah’s. Moreover, such spatial language of descent/ascent, in light of Tob 13:2, acquires in both accounts a surplus of meaning, exposing further and corroborating the symbolic-dynamics at play in the narration.

357 On the significance of space and place in narratives, see R. Van der Bergh, “Unfocused Narrative Space in Tobit 1.1–2.14”, Constructions of Space V. Place, Space and Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean World (LHBOTS 576; London – New York 2013) 214–225; P. Schreiner, “Space, Place and Biblical Studies: A Survey of Recent Research in Light of Developing Trends”, CBR 14/3 (2015) 340–371; Also interesting on the argument G. Eidevall, “Spatial Metaphors in Lam 3:1–9”, Metaphor in the Bible (BETL 187; Leuven – Paris – Dudley 2005) 133–137. 358 Ironically, precisely a byproduct of food (warm feces) is what causes his tremendous misfortune!

150 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

3.2.15.4 Tobiah’s Actions Regarding the Fish As noted before, it is remarkable the number of actions that in only few verses the narrator recounts of Tobiah in the fish incident (ten in total): (1) moving downwards, (2) washing, (3) shouting, (4) catching, (5) dragging, (6) slitting, (7) gathering, (8) cooking, (9) eating and (10) salting. In our view, such manner of recounting not only adds a further link to the chain of rhetorical devices employed by the narrator in Tob 6 but also to its symbolic dimension. From the point of view of time, we may notice that actions 1 and 2, are antecedent to the fish leaping up. Actions 3 and 4, concomitant. Actions 5 to 10, consequent (with respect to the incident). From the angle of plot development, actions 1 and 2 are causal; actions 3–7, consequential; actions 8–10, additional. The plot is advanced precisely through the sequence of actions that regards Tobiah in relation to the fish (the angel’s instructions likewise). From the point of view of character, while actions 1 and 2 regard Tobiah per se, all the others are all relational. We may also notice that, excepting actions 1 and 3, all other actions imply on Tobiah’s part, manumission and body-to-body contact in an ever deeper manner. Actions 4 and 5, although implying only external contact, considering the narrator’s description of the fish’s size, and considering the scene’s description as a hand-catching (not fishing), include intense body-to-body contact of Tobiah alone with the big fish. Such interaction ought to be thought not only for the fish’s catching and dragging to dry land, but also in avoiding its escaping (due to the fish’s panting)359 until it dies. Only when the fish get to such point of full dominion, actions 6 and 7 are possible to be executed and actions 8 to 10, conceived and implemented. Regarding such process, we may say that in relation to the fish, Tobiah is in an ever growing level of “intimacy” so to speak, until the fish’s flesh, becomes part of his own body through nourishment. Furthermore, Tobiah’s cooking of the fish, imply the action of placing over plausibly wood-charcoal, portions of fish-meat, followed by its consumption and the salting of its remnants to be carried along. 3.2.15.5 Relationship Between the Fish-Incident and the Marriage Account (Tob 7–8) Alonso Schökel not only noted a parallelism between Tobiah’s encounter with the fish and later the demon,360 but also the narrator’s understatements

359 Description found in the Vg for Tob 6:4. Recall p. 119. 360 “La primera experiencia prepara una correspondencia fundamental, que se puede formular asi: pez/Tobías = demonio/Sara. El pez es el amenaza que, vencida, permitirá superar la siguiente, más grave; la primera victoria dará los medios y el valor para afrontar la segunda.” See Alonso Schökel, – Iglesias González, Tobías, 69.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 151

regarding human sexuality implied in it.361 Exploring more deeply the fishincident and particularly the sequence of Tobiah’s actions regarding the fish, without allegorizing or drawing exact correspondence between parallel elements, we propose that, through his mode of recounting, the narrator anticipates for Tobiah, in a sort of “rehearsal,” what he is to perform in his upcoming marriage process, not only regarding Asmodeus, but also Sarah (marriage consummation).362 3.2.15.6 Tobiah’s Nuptial Night According to Tob 8 Reaching Ecbatana (7:1), having freely accepted marrying Sarah (6:18i–k), Tobiah asks Azariah to lead him immediately to Raguel’s house. After warmth and emotive welcome (7:2–8), Tobiah himself activates the marriage process (7:9b), with which the future father-in-law promptly agrees and executes (see 7:10–16). Noteworthy, the deadly threatening, involved in such process, is evoked by Raguel himself (see 7:10b–11).363 Notwithstanding the danger, Tobiah insists in marrying Sarah (see 7:11c) and the marriage is formalized (see 7:11d–13). After the supper (it is again night. See 6:11b; 7:9b.10; 7:11d) Sarah is led to the bridal chamber (7:15–16), then Tobiah (8:1). It is also noteworthy the “leading” to the bedroom

361 “¿No serán demonios que se inventa el mismo hombre? El instinto de muerte ligado al instinto de vida, no aclarado, no desenmascarado; represiones y tabús persistentes. Al exorcizar al demonio Asmodeo, con unas espirales de humo, el relato exorciza al lector de sus demonios. Los rasgos burlescos de la situación facilitan la catarsis: el lector tiene que reírse de sus miedos irracionales, de los demonios de su mente. Una vez liberado, podrá orar y gozar y engendrar nueva vida.” See Alonso Schökel, – Iglesias González, Tobías, 75–76; In that regard wrote Loader, “The wider background of the story reflects fears of women’s sexuality, focused in particular on the of sexual intercourse and especially on the wedding night.” See W. Loader, The Pseudepigrapha on Sexuality. Attitudes towards Sexuality in Apocalypses, Testaments, Legends, Wisdom, and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, MI 2011) 182; Also Moore noticed those two possible connections. See Moore, Tobit, 196; See also L. Mazzinghi, “‘Non per passione, ma con verità’: un aspetto del matrimonio secondo Tb 8,7”, Bible et Terre Sainte. Mélanges Marcel Beaudry (ed. K. J. O’Mahony – J. E. Aguilar Chiu – M. Roger) (Frankfurt-am-Main 2008) 83–96, 96; Drewermann offers insightful annotations on that theme from the perspective of “deep psychology.” See Drewermann, Der gefahrvolle Weg, 55–63; also C. Barría Iroumé, “El matrimonio de Tobías y la sexualidad. Un estudio psicológico”, Teología y Vida 45 (2004) 675–697, 676–678. 362 Parallel-scenes’ construction is also a typical resource of Tobit’s narrator. See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 148–149; Ego, Buch Tobit, 885–886; Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 76–77; On the use of parallel scenes as literary device, see for instance Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 102–111; Alonso Schökel considers Tobit’s “montaje paralelo” a typical contribution of the book. See Alonso Schökel, – Iglesias González, Tobías, 57. 363 The argument of death is further intensified, with the tragicomic recounting of the tomb digging (see 8:9b–10.18).

152 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

regarding both spouses. Once entered Sarah’s bedroom, Tobiah remembers Azariah’s instruction and deposes upon the “incense-coals” the fish’s heart and liver, which together with the spouses’ prayer (see 6:18; 8:4b–9) drives away the demon forever. By alluding to Gen 2:7.18 (8:6–7) Tobiah’s prayer alludes to both sexuality and offspring.364 Although the narrator ends the account with the sober expression, “And so they went to sleep that night” (8:9a), the consummation of marriage, as discussed later, is certain to be inferred, it being a clear sign that the demon was in fact defeated (see 3:8; 6:14.18b). 3.2.15.7 Parallels Between the Fish-Incident and the Marital Night The formal element of “loneliness” implied Tobiah’s encounter with the fish, appears to us an important component activating the parallelism between the fish-incident and the marital night. In effect, having faced the unexpected peril alone, Tobiah wins over, drags the big fish to dry land and performs the rest of the actions, also alone. For obvious reasons, in the marriage night, Tobiah has to be and interact with Sarah alone. We see more interesting parallelisms in the sequence of events implied in both narratives. Tobiah’s interaction with the fish implies a body-to-body contact and in an ever growing manner. Such feature may be seen forecasting Tobiah’s intimate involvement with Sarah in the marriage night. Notwithstanding the narrator sobriety in his description of that moment and without the necessity of drawing too precise parallels between the two interactions, not much imagination seems needed to see a parallelism between the sequence roasting of the fish/putting the fish organs upon the incense-coal; eating of the fish/consuming the marriage.365 In light of Gen 2:24, such parallelism may be seen as a metaphor of the lovers’ intimate union through the sexual intercourse, in which also the heat-element is implied, believed in antiquity particularly important regarding the generation of new life.366 Moreover, at level of Tob 6’s ideology, the caught fish assumes a particular symbolism regarding life, conveyed through the ideas of medicine (related to health and healing) and food (nourishment). Marriage consummation signifies in Tobit a source of life, for both Tobiah and Sarah: by signifying his escape from the demon’s killing and her freedom from the apparent curse of barrenness (see Tob 3: 8–9; 6:18g; 14:3.8/9).

364 See Mazzinghi, “‘Non per passione, ma con verità’”, 90–95. 365 N. MacDonald, “Food and Drink in Tobit and Other ‘Diaspora Novellas’”, Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. N. MacDonald)(LSTS 55; London – New York, NY 2006) 174–176. 366 See I. Fröhlich, “Medicine and Magic in Genesis Apocryphon : Ideas on Human Conception and Its Hindrances”, RevQ 25/2 (2011) 177–198, 185–186.

3.2 Tobiah Surprised by the Big Fish (Tob 6:3–6c) 

 153

If such dynamics of symbol is correct, it does not appear to us “sheer eisegesis,”367 the proposals of seeing in the narrator’s mention of the “feet,” a sexual connotation via allusion to the euphemistic sense of such element.368 In our view, it is not that the narrator’s description, as proposed by some commentator, intended to convey the idea that the fish tried to swallow Tobiah’s genitals (although it appears clear to us that the fish has a correspondence to the demon and that the demon’s action occurred precisely in the moment of the sexual intercourse).369 Rather, aware of such connotation, the narrator included the mention of the “feet” to corroborate the symbolic dynamics of the text, active since the beginning of the episode. Yoma 75a refers a euphemistic sense of “eating fish” meaning also sexual intercourse. The mere act of eating referred to in some text of the Hebrew Bible was interpreted by the Rabbis as having that euphemistic sense.370 The euphemistic sense of eating fish, the diffused phallic symbolism of the fish as well as the aphrodisiac property of salt, although difficult to assert with certainty, potentially reinforce the sexual connotation of the incident.

Summary The narrator’s careful articulation of various narrative coordinates of the fishincident, paired with the various narrative devices, interact to construe meaning in the scene in a crafted and creative manner. Through formal focalizing devices together with narrative slowdowns and speedups in the manner of recounting, the narrator polarizes the reader’s attention upon Tobiah as he interacts with the fish, under the angel’s guidance. The narrator also plays with spatial coordinates and the potentialities of the concepts through parallelism. Through a dynamics of intertextuality, triggered mostly by the repetition of key terms from the Jonah’s story (source text) in his story (target text), the narrator activates a link between the two “fishy” stories. Such connection serves to emphasize the ideological web

367 Recall discussion on p. 110–111. 368 See E. Drewermann, – I. Neuhaus, Voller Erbarmen rettet er uns. Die Tobit-Legende tiefenpsychologisch gedeutet (Freiburg im Breisgau 1985) 43–47; Drewermann, Der gefahrvolle Weg, 46–54; Barría Iroumé, “El matrimonio de Tobías y la sexualidad. Un estudio psicológico”, 678. 369 The narrator has Tobiah himself referring Asmodeus’ action with the construction εἰσπορεύομαι + πρός, LXX rendering of Hebrew ‫ על‬+ ‫( בוא‬see Gen 6:4; 16:2.4; 29:30; 30:3–5; 38:2.8–9.18), a typical biblical euphemism to refer the sexual intercourse. Asmodeus killed Sarah’s previous suitors precisely in the moment when “they tried to enter her.” 370 See M. H. Pope, Bible, Euphemism and Dysphemism in the, 722.

154 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

of the incident, with which the narrator involves the reader. The diffused symbolic values of the fish in the surrounding pagan but also Jewish milieu, could potentially be part of that articulation. Through an “actualization of latencies” (to use an expression of Sternberg),371 we highlighted the manner such narrative articulation serves to create a dynamics of symbol. Tobiah as the reader’s focal point, in his interaction both with the angel and the fish; his ceaseless activity regarding the fish up to its consumption and finally, preservation as source of life, seems to create parallelisms between the fish incident and Tobiah’s upcoming marriage process with Sarah, thus implying in it also a marital/sexual connotation through such a rhetorical articulation.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9) Exegesis 3.3.1 Structure Tob 6:6d–9 has a straightforward fourfold structure. The repetition of the stock phrase of v.2b introduces the account followed by a reference of place (v.6d). The next component is constituted by Tobiah’s question about the fish’s organs (v.7). Raphael’s answer about the usefulness of both the heart and the liver (v.8) and the gall (v.9), in this order, forms the main part of the section. The initial sentence followed by the reference of place links the sequence to the exposition of the episode and the thematic element tights neatly the dialogue with the fishincident. No concluding remarks is added by the narrator. The sequence is delimited by the new reference of place of v.10. Table 3.8 below, represents graphically such straightforward structure: Table 3.8: Structure of Tob 6:6d–9. Verse 6d–7a Verse 7 Verse 8 Verse 9

Exposition of the Incident Tobiah’s Question About the Fish’s Organs Azariah’s Response About the Fish’s Heart and the Liver Azariah’s Response About the Fish’s Gall

371 See Sternberg, Poetics, 23.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 155

3.3.2 Continuing Journey Tobiah Approaches Median Territory (v.6d) 3.3.2.1 The Temporal Conjunction/Preposition (ἕως) The preposition/conjunction ἕως, which in the LXX translates mostly Hebrew/ Aramaic ‫עד‬,372 conveys the temporal/local idea of “until, up to, as far as.”373 Its syntactical function in Tob 6:6d, seems determined by its relationship to adverb τότε in v.7. Its sense in the phrase, on the other hand, appears guided by its antecedent (adverb κοινῶς used adjectivally). As noted before, the information that Tobiah and the angel are traveling together appears superfluous (considering plot articulation) unless its use in v.6d (as well as in v.2b and later in 11:4) is meant to convey a sense beyond the literal.374 The particle ἕως, appears to serve a double function in the phrase, as preposition and conjunction, and with both temporal and local values. On the one hand, it serves to connect the two main verbs, ἐπορεύθησαν/ἤγγισαν; on the other, it creates a prepositional relationship with respect to verb ἐπορεύθησαν, which appears to include in its meaning, in coordination with verb ἤγγισαν, both a temporal and a local sense. In fact, it serves the narrator both to refer another distance covered by the travelers and the “place” of Tobiah’s questioning. It also serves to “extend” the narrator’s description of the traveler’s “ambience” of togetherness, conveyed through the first sentence of v.6d, until it is interrupted so to speak by Tobiah’s inquiry.

Commentary The fish-incident is concluded by the narrator with Tobiah’s “added” actions regarding the fish (eating of it /salting for the journey). The narrative is now forwarded through the narrator’s annotation that Tobiah and the angel, having continued their journey together, approach Median territory. Although the dog, as noted already, has been made after v.2a a background character, it is however still to be thought as travel’s crew member. The narrator’s keeping of Tobiah and Azariah-Raphael as the sole foreground characters, continues to manifest his fondness in focusing only on the two and highlighting their interaction. Furthermore, as in v.2b, the narrator refers to them in a relational manner, through the substantivized adjective ἀμφότεροι. Tobiah and Azariah’s “togetherness,” continues intended, as it appears, to convey the atmosphere of friendly trust created

372 See GQA, 227. 373 See GELS, 311–312; BDF, §455(3). 374 This view point is also sustained by Novick. See Novick, “Biblicized Narrative”, 757.

156 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

between them in symbolic terms. Such atmosphere, previously “altered” with Tobiah’s descending to the river and his encounter with the fish, is now “disturbed” by Tobiah’s legitimate questioning about the strange goods he is carrying along. The conveyed narrative description in v.6d, implies a non despicable lapse of narrated time, considering on realistic basis, the travel distance to “approach Median territory,” from the thereabouts of the Tigris where the company had spent the night.375 Such narrated time is referred through the generic and brief annotation of v.6d, lasting merely a reference of place. Through such manner of recounting, the narrator is skillfully able to construe the new scene’s basic coordinates, without diverting the reader’s attention from its main focus: the interaction between Tobiah and Raphael, its implications, its significance, its impact in the narrative. Furthermore, such manner of recounting, continues to signal that the narrator’s emphasis continues to fall at discourse level. The narrator’s explicit mention of “Media” begins to flash the reader the significance of such place in the episode and in the rest of the story.376

3.3.3 Tobiah Questions Azariah about the Fish’s Organs (v.7)

Exegesis 3.3.3.1 Text Critical Note Two noteworthy differences are found in the witnesses regarding v.7: the absence of the term “medicine” (φάρμακον) in important Greek testimonies and the order of the fish’s organs. In the fish scene, the angel justified Tobiah the collection of the specific fish’s organs by stating that they were φάρμακον χρήσιμον, “useful medicine” (6:5b). GII’s reading is supported by OL witnesses and the Vg.377 Already absent in GI in its first occurrence in Tob 2:10 (GII), the term φάρμακον, in fact, the whole of the angel’s explanation, is also absent in its reading for Tob 6:5b.378 While inquiring about Azariah’s assertion, Tobiah repeats in v.7 the same term φάρμακον used in v.5b. Once more, the term is not found in GI. The reading of GII is supported by OL, Vg and also Q.379 Considering that the term φάρμακον 375 See Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 127; Priero, Tobia, 100. 376 We may recall in that regard that the book of Tobit not only has its climax in that geographic area, but also ends precisely at Ecbatana, capital of Media. See Tob 14:12–15. 377 See WGS, 180 378 See WGS, 180. 379 OL: quod remedium est/Vg: quod remedium habebunt /4Q197 4 (bc), i, 9–12:[. . .] ‫( מה סם‬. . .). See WGS, 182–183.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 157

still occurs twice more in GII in Tob 11:8.11, supported again by OL witnesses,380 and is again absent in GI also there, such textual situation appears to signal to recensional work. GI editor appears to have a difficulty with the presence of term φάρμακον in the narrative, for some reason. A possible explanation for the omission of the term in GI and related witnesses, could be perhaps the aspect of “magic” that the Greek term φάρμακον implies in its meaning, thus transferred to the use of the fish’s organs in Tob 6 (discussion more in detail further below). Furthermore, a minor variation occurs among witnesses regarding the fish’s organs’ sequence. Up to v.7, the organs are repeated three times in GII, supported by OL and Q, in this order: “gall, heart and liver” (see Tob 6:5ab–6a).381 GII seems to present the sequence in vv.5–6 in correspondence to the plot’s main complications, for whose resolution they will be used. In questioning their medicinal value, however, v.7 inverts that sequence. “Heart and liver” are paired by insertion of the subject genitive (“of the fish”) before the“gall.”382 Tobiah’s manner of referring the organs in v.7, without his being aware of it, announces the reader in proleptic form the order in which they will be used as the plot unfolds to bring about the announced healings. The angel’s explanation of them in vv.8–9 immediately stresses it to him. GI on its part, in which the sequence in 6:5 was already presented as “heart, liver and gall”383 slightly alters the order in v.7 to “liver, heart and gall,” (with the genitive τοῦ ἰχθύος placed in the end of the phrase). A mere scribal mistake, considering the repetition of the organs in the chapter, could account for that fluctuation, without the need of postulating more sophisticated explanations. With the transposition of the subjective genitive to the end of the sentence, GI seems to turn Tobiah’s question neutral with respect to the rhetorical strategy, even if still mentioning the organs in the manner they will be used for plot resolution. Semitic material from Qumran, on its part, witnesses to the sequence “heart of the fish” separated from “liver and gall.” At first glance, Qumran’s formulation places a certain emphasis on the fish’s heart.384 Whatever the 380 In that context, the term in also found in GIII’s reading for 11:4. See WGS, 266.268.272–273. 381 See WGS, 180–183. 382 τί τὸ φάρμακον ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ τῷ ἥπατι τοῦ ἰχθύος καὶ ἐν τῇ χολῇ, literally, “What medicine {is} in the heart and the liver of the fish and in the gall?” 383 Besides being the sequence of their explanation in what follows, the order “liver and gall,” emphasizes a certain logic in the organ’s mention, given the fact that the gall bladder is an appendix of the liver. 384 4Q196 (13 (ab), 1–3): [. . .]‫[ לבב נונא וכבדה‬. . .] /4Q197 4 (bc), i, 9–12:[. . .]‫[מה סם בלבב נונא וכב‬. . .]. See WGS, 183. Although the mention of the heart and liver is not readable in the first part of the fragment, the angel’s explanation of them is witnessed by 4Q197 (4 (b), i, 12–15) in the exact same order found in all other witnesses for vv.8–9. See WGS, 185. Regarding genitival relationship with construct state in Qumran Aramaic (without the usual particle ‫)די‬, see GQA 186–187.193–195.

158 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

narrator’s (or editor’s) reason for such emphasis (if there would be any), Qumran texts appear to support GII’s reading, in the organ’s sequence in v.7. 3.3.3.2 Sense and Function of Adverb τότε Temporal adverb τότε is normally used to introduce the “time” in which something happened or will happen (thus “at that time, then”).385 Engel called the attention to Tobit narrator’s use of it in coordination with temporal adverb ὅτε, to construe some sort of “stations” in the I-Section (Tob 1:3–3:6).386 Its use in v.7 appears coordinated syntactically with v.6d in a sort of protasis/apodosis relationship, being meaningful in the phrase, logically and grammatically, in dependence to particle ἕως of v.6d. The happening that is about to be referred to, takes place within the spatial and temporal and thus circumstantial coordinates formed by the narrator’s articulation of vv.6d–7, which constitute the scene’s setting (even in its vagueness). Operating at axis of time, adverb τότε is used to mark the “moment” of Tobiah’s question about the fish’s organs. In its coordination with particle ἕως, the adverb also conveys through its meaning the idea of space created through v.6d. 3.3.3.3 Ἀδελφός In his questioning, Tobiah addresses Azariah as “brother” (ἄδελφε). In Tobit, the term ἀδελφός occurs 38x times in GII, assuming various connotations according to various contexts.387 Tobit-character uses the term to refer to his brothers in the strict sense (see 1:3.5.21), his relatives, members of the same paternal clan (see 1:10.14) and to fellow Israelites in general (see 1:16; 2:2.3.10). From Tob 6 onwards, that is the consistent manner in which Tobiah and Azariah address each other (see 6:7.11.13(2x).14.16.18). A concentration of the term is found in Tob

385 See GELS, 685; BDF, §105. 386 See Engel, “Auf zuverlässigen Wegen”, 86. 387 See GELS, 9–10; V. T. M Skemp, “«Ἀδελφός» and the Theme of Kinship in Tobit”, ETL 75/1 (1999) 92–103, 94–100; Fassbeck, “Tobit’s Religious Universe”, 177–178.181–183; P. Grelot, “Les noms de parenté dans le livre de ‘Tobie’”, RevQ 17 (1996) 327–337, 330–337; Also regarding the theme of family in Tobit, see D. Dimant, “The Family of Tobit”, With Wisdom as a Robe. Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich (ed. K. D. Dobos – M. Köszeghy) (Hebrew Bible Monographs 21; Sheffield 2009) 157–162; W. M. Soll, “The Family as Scriptural and Social Construct in Tobit”, The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. C. A. Evans – J. A. Sanders) (JSNT.SS 154; Sheffield 1998) 166–175; B. A. Bow, – G. W. E.Nickelsburg, “Patriarchy With a Twist: Men and Women in Tobit”, ”Women Like This”. New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (ed. A.-J. Levine) (Atlanta, GA 1991) 127–143; Portier-Young, “Alleviation of Suffering in the Book of Tobit”, 48–51.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 159

5 (16x), in the context of Azariah’s hiring process as Tobiah’s travel companion (see 5:5.6.9.10.11(2x).12.13.14(4x).17(2x)), comparable in number only to its eleven occurrences in Tob 7 (see 7:1(3x).2–4.6.9–12). The term has only a few occurrences in the book’s final chapters (4x in total: 9:2; 10:6.13; 14:4). Noteworthy, Tobiah begins addressing Azariah-Raphael as “brother” only in Tob 6 (in Tob 5 he is addressed merely as “young man,” νεανίσκε. See 5:5.7.10) that is to say, only after his father’s inspection, recognition and “insistence” of the stranger as such in Tob 5.388 Azariah’s dialogue with blind Tobit (5:11–14), is loaded with dramatic irony; the angel’s words to Tobit and to Tobiah before him, is marked with verbal irony.389 Such narrative situation appears also significant for the narrator’s characterization of young Tobiah as “the lad” (i.e. his characterological state). From the point of view of the communicative dynamics, according to Zimmermann, Tobiah’s manner of addressing his travel companion, provides the reader “with the thrill of recognition in perceiving Azariah= God helps.”390

Intertextuality: Once More Tob 6 and Gen 22 Particularly, the occurrence of the phrase καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἀμφότεροι κοινῶς in Tob 6:6d, serves to parallel Tobiah’s “question & answer” segment with Isaac’s in Gen 22:6b–8, notwithstanding the evident differences. As Novick noted, in both accounts the reader hears, in a separate scene, the dialogue between the two interlocutors, as they approach destination, with respect to items they have been told/made to carry with them.391 In the case of Isaac, the question is raised about the missing victim for the sacrifice; in Tobiah’s, about the medicinal usefulness of some fish-organs he was told to spare. Although the questions’ matter is evidently

388 Particularly important in that regard is 5:17 (καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ εὐλογία σοι γένοιτο ἄδελφε καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ παιδίον ἑτοίμασον τὰ πρὸς τὴν ὁδὸν καὶ ἔξελθε μετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου). Only after Azariah-Raphael reveals his ancestry as a faithful and trustful Israelite he is confirmed as “brother.” 389 The ironical twist of Azariah’s apparent “deceiving” answer to blind Tobit is part of the rhetorical articulation through which the narrator deconstructs Tobit-character’s righteous behavior, built through his very words in the autobiographical section. To miss the dialogue’s ironical twist, and to moralize over Raphael’s behavior, is to blame unjustly the angel of being a liar and deceiver. In that regard, we do not agree completely with Miller’s interpretation of the matter in G. D. Miller, “Raphael the Liar: Angelic Deceit and Testing in the Book of Tobit”, CBQ 74 (2012) 492–508, 502–504. 390 Zimmermann, Book of Tobit, 81. 391 See Novick, “Biblicized Narrative”, 756–760; According to Millett, such dialogue of Gen 22, “is a superb example of dramatic irony.” See Millett, “Isaac and Iphigeneia”, 120.

160 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

different, the questioners’ suspicion, inferable in both accounts, of their potential implication regarding the items they are made to carry, appears to confirm the intertextual link.392 A deadly aspect in fact is implied in both travel stories. In effect, in Gen 22, that element is evident from its first lines, considering the divine request of offering Isaac in holocaust, emphasized through the narrative items brought along the travel (knifewood-fire). In Tobit, however, the narrator has to build it up; and he does gradually and in skillful manner in the course of the recounting. Remotely, the fact that Tobiah is sent abroad in the company of a stranger (within the world of the narration no one knows about the whole divine plan), for mere sake of money recovery, begins to point that out (see 5:18–20) considering the risks of such an enterprise in those times. Then, the danger of death emerges in an ever growing manner from chapter 6 to the consummation of the marriage in 8:9. The fish attack represents its first expression and Tobiah’s acceptance of marriage with Sarah aware of the deadly demonic influence (see 6:14), its pic (within the frame of the travel story). The motif of a substitute victim (in Gen 22, the ram; in Tob 6, the fish organs), besides reinforcing the intertextual rapprochement of both stories, serves also to highlight the idea of death. Finally, Raguel’s digging of the grave in Tob 8 and even more so Hannah’s explicit conjecture of that possibility for her son in Tob 10:4, further insists in the theme of death (although at that moment of the story, the happy resolution of the situation has been enacted before the reader’s eyes). Still around that key idea of Isaac being the potential missing victim for the sacrifice, we notice a pair of elements more, as meaningful to and connecting of Gen 22 and Tob 6. Up to v.7 in Gen 22, Isaac emerges as a completely passive figure, in total submission to his father and in him to God, as it appears as part of the text’s rhetoric strategy (serving to highlight silently his destiny as a potential victim). The narrator’s repetition of the stock phrase of Gen 22:6 (end) to conclude also the scene of Gen 22:7–8, also serves to underscore that reality. In Tob 6, however, the scene of Tobiah’s questioning ends laconically and in that sense appears contrasting to that of Gen 22. Such intentional end in Tob 6 seems part of the narrator’s rhetorical strategy. In revealing the reader the demonic deadly threatening that awaited Sarah’s suitors (see 3:8) and in anticipating Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah as part of Raphael’s mission (see Tob 3:17), the narrator leads Tobit’s reader to infer and bear in mind, as they continue the story, the

392 In the very words of Novick, “In both cases, an only son is led by a kinsman into a lifethreatening situation.” See Novick, “Biblicized Narrative”, 755–756.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 161

potential deadly threatening that concerns Tobiah.393 Although the reader may be aware that an angel of God is involved in the process, Tobiah how- ever, is not. The divine orchestrated plan is made known to him only at the story’s denouement at the same time as to the father (see Tob 12:15). Azariah-Raphael therefore, strikingly leads Tobiah, as Abraham, Isaac, to assume the position of a potential victim, which in both cases, according to a divine plan, is never actualized. Such communicative dynamics, besides further strengthening the intertextual connection, serves to intensify both episodes’ drama. Furthermore, in Gen 22, the reader knows from its first lines that God’s command to Abraham to offer his son in holocaust (22:2) is intended to be a test for the patriarch (see 22:1).394 That idea as commentators have pointed out, marks the sense of the account and anticipates its happy end. The element of trial, therefore, is revealed to the reader to lead him to a proper comprehension of the story that is about to unfold. Abraham and Isaac learn of it concomitantly at the story’s denouement, as the angel speaks from heaven (see Gen 22:12). Undergone that trial, Abraham is confirmed in his righteousness before the LORD (see Gen 15:4; 22:12). In a different manner, the idea of trial, is also implied in the angel’s mission in Tobit, according to the angel’s very words in 12:14.395 The reader however learns about that dimension of trial in Tobit only a posteriori and together with the characters, which constitutes another important difference between the stories of Tobit and Gen 22 in that respect. Although the sense of Raphael’s words in Tob 12:14 is discussed among commentators,396 the narrator seems connecting through that motif also Tobit’s plight and testing to Abraham’s in Gen 22.397 In light of the above mentioned considerations, a parallelism is created also between Abraham and Raphael, safeguarding again the obvious differences. Abraham leads Isaac in a travel to a distance place, in obedience to God. Raphael acting as a hired travel guide leads Tobiah to distant lands, also in obedience to God, as he later explicitly states (see Tob 12:18). Abraham is confident that the 393 Up to Tob 6, the reader is unaware with Tobiah’s knowledge of Sarah’s misfortune. Using again the same technique, the narrator in fact surprises the reader in 6:14–15 with such information (see discussion further below). 394 The “binding of Isaac” constitutes the greatest of Abraham’s trials (which according to Grotius were 10). See Grotius, Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum I, 32. See also in that regard J. L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible. A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA 1999) 325–326. 395 See Mazzinghi, “La sofferenza dell’anziano Tobi”, 83–88. 396 See in that regard Mazzinghi, “La sofferenza dell’anziano Tobi”, 91–93; Reiterer, “An Archangel’s Theology”, 266. 397 Connection accepted also by Moore. See Moore, Tobit, 271.

162 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Lord would provide a victim for the sacrifice. The patriarch finally offers a ram caught by its horns in the thicket in place of Isaac (see Gen 22:13). By Azariah’s encouragement, Tobiah catches a fish, and in obedience to his instructions he spares some of its organs, whose fumigation at the bridal chamber, casts away the killing demon. In that sense, the fish seems to assume also the feature of substitute victim. In that regard, considering the symbolic value of Tobiah’s actions regarding the fish, GII narrator’s use of verb ἀναφέρω in Tob 6:4b,398 typical in the vocabulary of sacrifices (as witnessed by Leviticus, for instance), could be an encrypted anticipation of that articulation of substitution. Tobiah’s burning of the fish’s organs in the bridal chamber, in fact, resembles the typical action of burning offerings, through which, the sacrificial victim is brought up to the divinity. Tobiah’s action in that sense, could be seen as a narrative echo of the description given for instance in Lev 1:13 safeguarding again the obvious differences.399 Both accounts end laconically, reporting no reaction of the questioner before the given answer, strengthening further the intertextual link.400 Lastly, with respect to Isaac, it is only after Gen 22 that he is “prepared” to assume marriage. Gen 22 in fact ends with a mention of Rebecca’s birth (see Gen 22:23). The account of their marriage in Gen 24, mediates Gen 23 which emphasizes the importance of proper burial in the story of Abraham’s acquisition of the cave of Machpelah. Such intermezzo also serves the narrator to create narrating time for Isaac’s physical growth, who at the moment of his marriage with Rebecca, according to Gen 25:20, was already forty years old! A similar narrative articulation seems at play also in Tob 6.

Commentary The fish incident certainly left Tobiah several unanswered questions. His hired travel guide, in a first moment of peril, instead of helping, only speaks. Then, 398 Curiously, verb ἀναφέρω, is used in the exact same form in Gen 22:13 LXX as in Tob 6:4b. 399 But the inner organs and the shanks shall be washed with water. The priest shall then offer all of it, burning it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a sweet-smelling oblation to the LORD” [NAB translation]). As argued further below, one of the scopes for that link appears to be imprinting Tobiah’s “ritual” regarding the fish’s organs with a Jewish-religious twist, to moderate its resemblance to magic. 400 In the MT, the stock phrase of Gen 22:6 seems repeated by the narrator in 22:8 as a concluding remark regarding the incident (thus delimiting it by means of an inclusion). In the LXX, however, its repetition in the end of 22:8 is given in participial form, grammatically belonging to the next segment, forming part of its introduction (Gen 22:8–9 LXX: πορευθέντες δὲ ἀμφότεροι ἅμα 22:9 ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον ὃν εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεός).

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 163

Azariah’s instruction of sparing some parts of the fish, even when fulfilled with exemplary promptness, might have sounded rather odd to him. At that moment, tired, hungry and agitated by the unexpected threat, young Tobiah plausibly would have given little or no thought to it. As the peril’s distress becomes past and the travel advances, a renewed perception of the strange items he is carrying and the remembrance of Azariah’s statement in their regard, seems to have motivated Tobiah to inquire about them. Its importance comes immediately to surface as the scene continues. Whereas in the previous scene, the spotlight fell upon Tobiah as he interacted with the angel and the fish, in this sequence of the travel story, Azariah is the figure that dominates, as he answers Tobiah’s question about the fish’s organs. Azariah-Raphael in fact could have expanded on the medicinal value of the fish’s organs already in the context of their ingathering (as for instance in A5).401 For the narrator however it seemed important for Tobiah to be the one to inquire about them after a long walk at the side of God’s angel. The adventurous colorfulness with which the travel story begins, is now toned down notably. The reader participates in the narrative from Tobiah’s perspective, listening with him, to Azariah’s response. Noteworthy, the narrator continues to stress the reader Azariah’s true identity as “the angel,” and Tobiah’s characterological situation as “the lad.” Tobiah addresses his companion as “brother,” a familiar vocative to a “fellow Israelite.” Such vocative further highlights the friendly ambience that has already established itself between the two travelers, who continued to journey together. His question activates a new interaction with the angel in dialogue format. Such expedient, similar to the one in the previous scene, allows characters to manifest themselves in their words, through which they are further characterized by the narrator. Therefore, although the scene’s spotlight falls in a special manner upon Azariah-Raphael, the event of Tobiah’s questioning appears narratively significant also for an ulterior characterization of him.402 Since it is not the first time the narrator characterizes Tobiah through questioning, it may be helpful, for a better grasp of the narrative value of v.7, to consider the matter in a broader context. Tobit 5 appears to be the precise starting point in that respect, since it concentrates for the first time, Tobiah’s questions, and with a direct bearing with the travel story:

401 See WGS, 181. 402 In that regard Nowell stated, “Tobiah’s speech manifests the qualities characteristic of him in the first section of the book. He asks many questions (cf. 5:2, 5–6). He also speaks with the haste of youth (...).” See Nowell, Narrative Technique and Theology, 188–189.

164 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Table 3.9: Tobiah’s questions in Tob 5. 1

Tob 5:2a

2 3 4

Tob 5:2b Tob 5:2c Tob 5:5a

πῶς δὲ δʋνήσομαι αʋ᾽τὸ λαβεῖν παρ᾽ αʋ᾽τοʋ˜ καὶ αʋ᾽τὸς οʋ᾽ γινώσκει με καὶ ἐγὼ οʋ᾽ γινώσκω αʋ᾽τόν τί σημεῖον δῶ αʋ᾽τῷ καὶ ἐπιγνῷ με καὶ πιστεʋ́σῃ μοι καὶ δῷ μοι τὸ ἀργʋ́ριον τὰς ὁδοὺς τὰς εἰς Μηδίαν οʋ᾽ γινώσκω τοʋ˜ πορεʋθῆναι ἐκεῖ πόθεν εἶ νεανίσκε

Tob 5 opens itself with Tobiah’s (apparently) resolute statement of fulfilling all that his father Tobit, enjoined him in the previous chapter. Tobit’s “spiritual testament,” in the form of a wisdom instruction, is enveloped by Tobit’s remembrance (see 4:1) and utterance (see 4:20) of the money left in deposit by Gabael, followed by a last moralizing advice regarding material goods and piety (see 4:21). Inferring his father’s implicit request to retrieve such familial patrimony,403 Tobiah then, expresses the difficulties he sees to accomplish such enterprise in the form of questions (Tob 5:2abc). Leaving aside question 4 from the above list (Tob 5:5a), which appears irrelevant for our discussion at this point, we may consider more closely questions 1–3. Tobiah’s threefold questioning raises important impediments regarding his potential task of retrieving the familial money. Question 1, in effect, constitutes a sort of premise on which the other two append. It states a fundamental difficulty for Tobiah’s task: Gabael and he, as it appears, have never met each other before. Such problem could be resolved if there existed a “sign” (σημεῖον), in modern terms, a receipt or voucher, that could authenticate Tobiah to retrieve the money before Gabael (question 2). Solved that problem, still a third and more fundamental would remain: Tobiah’s ignorance of the ways to Media. As it appears, the lad had never left the familial surroundings until that moment, at least not for any lengthy travel (question 3).404 Tobiah’s words to his father may appear clever and proactive. Up to a certain point, however. Question 3 (a decisive one) actually transfers completely its resolution to father Tobit. Ironically in fact, it is Tobit that will have to handle the problem from the darkness of his blindness (as the story’s sequence lucidly shows). Tobiah once more will

403 In his conversation with Azariah, Tobit states in 5:10, that it is Tobiah the one willing to go to Media (“καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Τωβιθ Τωβιας ὁ υἱός μου θέλει πορευθῆναι εἰς Μηδίαν /“And Tobit said to him, ‘My son Tobiah wishes to go to Media’”). The mother Hannah however, in her lament after the son’s departure, presents another interpretation of the event, reproaching Tobit for sending away their son to such an endeavor (see Tob 5:18). 404 Tob 5:2c formulates de problem in the form of a negative statement.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 165

emerge merely as prompt executor of directions; he still needs to mature in his will power and capacity of resolving things by himself. His reaction before the big fish confirmed that. Tobiah’s questioning in 6:7 therefore, as it is the case in Tob 5, appears to serve the narrator not only for plot development405 but also to enrich his characterization of the youth. As discussed previously, the scene of Tobiah’s question about the fish’s organs seems to imply an intertextual dynamics, that connect it again to Gen 22. Through that link, Tobiah’s figure is paralleled, in a certain measure and regarding determined aspect, to that of Isaac in Gen 22. As Isaac’s question in Gen 22:7, Tobiah’s prepares the story’s denouement, intensifying the story’s drama by suggesting the questioner’s involvement with the items carried with him. In both stories, in fact, in the manner proper to each of them, the protagonists are involved gradually and in an ever intenser manner in the plot’s complication(s).406 Nevertheless, besides the differences noted before, whereas in Gen 22:8, by closing the scene with the same final (stock) phrase of 22:6, the narrator accentuates Isaac’s complete and continued submission to his father Abraham; in Tob 6, even when during the fish-scene Tobiah appeared to be replicating before Azariah his typical attitude before his father407 and thus to be bearing a certain similitude to Isaac’s before his; the narrator’s laconic end of the “question’s scene”, without repeating the stock phrase of 6:2b.6d as in Gen 22, suggests among other things, that a certain “independence” of Tobiah regarding Azariah-Raphael has already taken place. Such “emancipation” seems to point out that already a certain maturation of Tobiah has come about after his “fishtrial,” preparing him to accept deliberately (and thus freely) the marriage proposal with Sarah (object of the next scene). Tobiah’s question may be also seen as expression of the angel’s pedagogy with him, through which his maturing process progresses.

405 In chapter 5, among other things, Tobiah’s question (3) activates the narrative occasion for his meeting up with the angel; in chapter 6, the angel’s important revelation regarding the fish’s organs. 406 See Di Pede, et al., Révéler les oeuvres de Dieu. 63. 407 As Galdos wrote, “Dictis obtemperans Raphaelis obedientissimus Tobias, omnia fecerat ad Tigrin circa piscem, sola ductus angeli praecipientis auctoritate, sola motus qua erat iam ab infantiam praeditus obedientia (...)”. See Galdos, Tobit, 191.

166 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

3.3.4 “Medicinal” Value of the Heart and the Liver (v.8)

Exegesis 3.3.4.1 Narrative Significance of Raphael’s Answer As stated above, even when Tobiah’s question may have an importance for his characterization as character, the scene’s spotlight, falls upon the angel, whose answer occupies most of the sequence.408 At story level, the incident merely signifies a road conversation between the two protagonists, fairly motivated by the issue of the spared fish’s organs. At discourse level, however, we may continue noticing the narrator’s careful articulation of certain elements for the consistency of his narrative rhetoric. For instance, Tobiah’s question becomes the narrative occasion for Raphael’s donation of another link to the plot’s revelative chain; such donation, is “dressed” with the technique of creating a twofold informative level (the information given through Raphael’s mouth signifies something different to his interlocutor at story level [Tobiah] and at level of the discourse [the reader]); and such communicative dynamics, plays an important role in keeping the reader’s interest, considering the narrator’s repeated technique of anticipations.409 Raphael’s explanation of the usefulness of the fish’s organs, donates new information concomitantly to Tobiah and the reader. The reader however, is endowed with more knowledge than the character: the angel’s information to Tobiah becomes a revelation to the reader regarding the manner in which the announced healings will be brought about. Moreover, the attentive reader is surprised with the implied idea, soberly stated already through Tobiah’s carrying of the “medicinal” organs, of the lad’s direct involvement in the healing processes instead of the angel’s. Such articulation of the discourse, serves the narrator to continue his characterization of Raphael and to state narratively his specific role in God’s healing intervention. Having Tobiah addressing his travel companion as “brother Azariah,” the narrator affirms the Lord’s saving help to his faithful ones (considering the meaning of the angel’s “earthly” name). Stressed as “the angel” to the reader, Azariah’s answer is highlighted as Raphael’s, and therefore as from “God who heals” (considering the meaning of the angel’s real name). Considering Tobiah’s referral as “the lad,” such narrative situation continues to emphasize the pedagogic

408 From an statistic point of view, occupying 52 words in two verses in contrast to the 17 words of Tobiah’s question in v.7. 409 See Schellenberg, “Suspense, Simultaneity, and Divine Providence in the Book of Tobit”, 316–317.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 167

dimension of the text at both story (with respect to the character) and discourse levels (regarding the reader).410 Raphael’s precise directions regarding the organs plays an important role for the sense and message of the motif in the story. 3.3.4.2 Sense of Verb κάπνισον In replying about the usefulness of the fish’s heart and liver, Azariah affirms that they serve “to be burned as to cause to emite smoke” against demonic infestation.411 In simple terms, verb καπνίζω means to “make smoke (i.e. to make a fire), to use {something} as a fumigation.”412 With only few occurrences in the LXX, the verb is used intransitively,413 rendering Hebrew ‫עשן‬414 (Aramaic equivalent ‫)תנן‬.415 In its causative sense (to burn as to cause to smoke), verb καπνίζω seems unique to Tobit. A proper understanding of the narrative picture it draws in Tob 6:8, implies its interpretation in coordination with the preposition ἐνώπιον (GIII:ἔμπροσθεν; OL: coram; 4Q197: ‫)קדם‬416 and the sense of the term ἀπάντημα that follows it, and in relation to both Azariah’s second annotation regarding the use of the heart and liver in 6:17–18a and Tobiah’s fulfillment of it in 8:2-3 (see commentary below). Lastly, we may notice the imperatival form of verb καπνίζω in GII (aorist imperative 2ms).417 GI (re-)formulates Raphael’s instruction in a more elaborated manner, with a conditional sentence with ἐάν+subjunctive of verb ὀχλέω (“to cause trouble to, to annoy”) in the protasis, coordinated with the infinitival phrase δεῖ καπνίσαι in the apodosis.418 GI’s rendering but also OL’s (which uses present passive indicative of verb fumigo) help us to grasp the proper sense of the imperatival form of GII, which in light of the available evidence, appears to be an exact reflex of its Semitic Vorlage. 410 Considering the theme of Tobit’s trial according to the angel’s very words in 12:14, the angel’s pedagogic role appears significant in the manner that is proper to it, also to father Tobit, the story will show (consider particularly Tob 12–13). 411 See GELS, 362. 412 See LS, 876; Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, I, 638. 413 Eight occurrences in total, extra Tobit: Gen 15:17; Exo 19:18; 20:18; Pss 103:32 and 143:5

(LXX); Wis 10:7; Isa 7:4; 42:3.

414 G form: “to be surrounded with smoke, exude smoke”; D: “to smoke, to fumigate.” In the MT it is used mostly in substantival and adjectival form (as verb only in the Psalms). See HALOT, I, 896; HATIS, 62. 415 Witnessed by 4Q197 (4 i 12–14): ‫אתנה‬, which Beyer describes as C imp. ms + particle ‫נה‬-, meaning “in Rauch aufgehen lassen” (+ acc). See WGS, 185; Beyer, ATTM II , 178; 504. 416 See WGS, 184–185. 417 κάπνισον. According to BDF the aorist imperative is normally used “in commands related to conducts in specific cases.” See BDF, §335. See also in that regard, SSG 328–330. 418 See GELS, 516; SSG, 762–766.

168 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

3.3.4.3 Sense of the Term ἀπάντημα Greek term ἀπάντημα used to describe in v.8 the demonic vexation suffered by a man or a woman, is rare in the LXX, pace Littman.419 The basic meaning of ἀπάντημα is “meeting, encounter.”420 According to Muraoka, ἀπάντημα conveys the idea of “that which befalls somebody and harms.”421 OL conveys precisely that idea with the term incursum (“hostile onrush, attack, assault, onslaught”).422 Therefore, ἀπάντημα does not seem to indicate some “internal” phenomenon involving a demon (possession) but some sort of “external” vexation. In fact, the narrator’s description of Sarah’s plight in Tob 3:8, complemented with Tobiah’s words in 6:14 and the enactment of the driving out of the demon in 8:2–3, suggests that the demon signified a presence in Sarah’s chamber423 rather than her “body.” In that sense, the burning of the fish’s heart and liver is not meant for fumigation of Sarah’s vestments, Tobiah’s and the room, as some version imagines it,424 but merely her room, “place” of dwelling/ sojourn of the killing demon. 3.3.4.4 Sense of the Phrase δαιμονίου ἢ πνεύματος πονηροʋ˜ The burning of the fish’s heart and liver is presented in Tob 6:8 as a efficacious remedy in case of vexation δαιμονίου ἢ πνεύματος πονηροῦ, “by a demon or evil spirit.” Main witnesses are unanimous in transmitting both terms, including

419 “This is an uncommon word in classical Greek, although it does occur in Euripides Orestes 514. It is common in the Septuagint”(emphasis is ours). Littman, Tobit, 110; Rendering Hebrew ‫( פגע‬noun) ἀπάντημα has actually only two occurrences in the LXX extra Tobit (1 Kgs 5:18; Qoh 9:11). See HATTIS 13. 4Q197 4(b), i, 12–15 transmits the verbal form ‫נגיעי‬, used as it appears adjectively, interpreted by Beyer as G passive participle mp constr. meaning “berührt, geschlagen von.” See Beyer, ATTM II , 438. 420 See LS, 178; Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, 107–108. 421 See GELS, 64. 422 See OLD, 878. 423 The νυμφών (“bridal chamber”) of vv.14–17; ταμίειον of 8:1. Interestingly, Sarah’s prayer for deliverance in Tob 3:10–15 is enacted in her father’s room, in the house’s upper part, not in hers (inhabited by the demon and memorial of seven previous deaths), as it appears imagined by the narrator to be located in the ground floor (see 8:1). 424 For example, Hebrew Fagius or Constantinople 1519 (H4 in WGS), reads in 6:8 that the heart and liver are to be smoked “between a man and a woman who have demons” and in 8:2 that both Sarah, Tobiah and the room were fumigated with the smoke from the organs. See L.  T.  Stuckenbruck, “The «Fagius» Hebrew Version of Tobit. An English Translation Based on the Constantinople Text of 1519”, The Book of Tobit – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 189–219, 205.209.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 169

Qumran fragments (4Q197 f4i 13).425 Considering the phrase merely from a grammatical point of view, we may notice that Greek particle ἤ, contrary to our English “or” (which besides its basic disjunctive sense may also be used to construe synonymic relationships), is used either with a disjunctive sense or in a comparative construction meaning “than” (for instance in Tob 3:6).426 In Tob 6:8 ἢ separates at first men and women (ἀνθρώπου ἢ γυναικός); later, in 6:13, Tobiah from other nubile “candidates” for Sarah. Therefore, if we interpret merely from the point of view of the phrase’s syntax, Tobit’s author appears to have had in mind two separate entities, “demons” and “evil spirits.” Furthermore, while recounting Sarah’s plight (Tob 3:7–15), the narrator states in 3:8 that the girl was vexed by Asmodeus, the “evil demon” (Ασμοδαῖος τὸ δαιμόνιον τὸ πονηρὸν). The same expression regarding Asmodeus is repeated in 3:17.427 It is interesting that Asmodeus in Tob 3, is not referred as “spirit,” but merely referred as “evil δαιμόνιον.”428 Stated that way, the term “δαιμόνιον” per se could seem to not include the attribute “evil” in it. In consequence question arises whether there existed in the author’s time the idea of good δαιμόνια, strange it may seem at first glance. In Tob 6, Asmodeus will be referred to still three times (6:14c.16d.18a) simply as “δαιμόνιον” (thus without the attribute “evil”) and in that same manner in its last occurrence in 8:3. Noteworthy, the demon’s name occurs only in the narrator’s mouth in Tob 3.

425 [ ·· ‫שד או רוח] באישא‬. For the distinction between the terms in Qumran literature, see C. Stadel, “‫שד‬,” TWQ, III, 855–857; E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “‫רוח‬,” TWQ, III, 618–632. 426 See LS 761; GELS, 317. The same may be said of Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent ‫או‬. 4Q197 4(b), i, 12–15 uses twice “‫ ”או‬in 6:8 where GII uses “ἢ.” See WGS, 184–185; GQA 253–255; B. K. Waltke, – M. P. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IND 1990) 654–655. 427 Regarding Asmodeus, besides the study of Owens mentioned in note 28, p. 76, see M. Hutter, “Asmodeus (Ἀσμοδαῖος)”, DDD, 106–108; B. Ego, “‘Denn er liebt Sie’ (Tob 6,15 Ms. 319): Zur Rolle des Dämons Asmodäus in der Tobit-Erzählung”, Die Dämonen – Demons. Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (Hrsg. A. Lange – H. Lichtenberger – D. Römheld) (Tübingen 2003) 309–317; J. Dan, – S. L. Schwarz, “Asmodeus”, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (ed. A. Berlin) (New York (NY) 2011) 77; H. Frey-Anthes, Unheilsmächte und Schutzgenien, Antiweisen und Grenzgänger. Vorstellungen von »Dämonen« im alten Israel (OBO 227; Göttingen 2007) 281–300; a bit outdated, but still interesting P. Haupt, “Asmodeus”, JBL 40/3–4 (1921) 174– 178. 428 In that regard, it is interesting the manner OL tradition describes the demon. L1 qualifies Asmodeus in 3:8.17 as daemonium nequissimum while L3, malus daemon (L2 and Vg do not qualify it there). See WGS, 118.130–131. In 6:8, L1 defines “demon” as spiritum immundum (translation influenced perhaps by the NT, since the expression does not occur in the Latin OT); L2 spiritus nequissimos; L3 spiritus malignus; Vg only reads daemonium. See WGS, 184.

170 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

As Ida Fröhlich stated, “The world of angels and demons in Tobit corresponds to the ideas about divine beings and devils in the Second Temple literature.”429 The subject of “divine beings and devils” in STP is quite a broad one and continues to draw attention of scholars.430 Without going too much into detail on the matter, we may notice that the general idea of “demon” in ancient Judaism in fact had its development to reach the meaning we are normally used to in English.431 From the linguistic point of view, archaic Greek distinguishes two nouns related to our modern concept of “demons,” masculine noun δαίμων and the neutral δαιμόνιον (used in Tobit).432 “The former is the usual term for the whole field; the latter is more limited in time and in content.”433 In its historical development, the term δαίμων originally conveys the popular belief of a “being, often thought of as a spirit of the dead, endowed with supernatural powers, capricious and incalculable, present in unusual places at particular times and at work in terrifying events in nature and human life, but placated, controlled or at least held off by magical means.”434 In Greek philosophy, the term refers to a “supernatural power

429 See Fröhlich, “Tobit against the Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 64–65; See also I.  Fröhlich, “Demons and Illness in Second Temple Judaism: Theory and Practice”, Demons and Illness from Antiquity to the Early-Modern Period (S. Bhayron – C. Rider) (MRLA 5; Leiden – Boston, MA 2017) chap. 6, 81–96. 430 Besides other references sparse in this section, see for instance A. Lange, – H. Lichtenberger,  – K. D. Römheld, eds. Die Dämonen : die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt = Demons : The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment (Tübingen 2003); T. Röhmer, et al., eds. Entre dieux et hommes: anges, démons et autres figures intermédiaires. Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 19 et 20 mai 2014 (OBO 286; Göttingen 2017) 431 In that regard see the interesting studies of D. B. Martin, “When Did Angels Become Demons?”, JBL 129/4 (2010) 657–677; H. Niehr, “Zur Entstehung von Dämonen in der Religionsgeschichte Israels. Überlegungen zum Weg des Rešep durch die nordwestsemitische Religionsgeschichte”, Die Dämonen : die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt = Demons : The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment (Hrsg. A. Lange  – H. Lichtenberger   – K.F. D. Römheld) (Tübingen 2003) 84–106. 432 LS, 365. Greek δαιμόνιον appears to convey in Greek the same idea of Hebrew/Aramaic ‫שד‬ (the prevailing class of demons). See J. A. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts From Nippur (New York (NY) 2011) 73–75. 433 See W. Foerster, “δαίμων, δαιμόνιον, δαιμονίζομαι, δαιμονιώδης, δεισιδαίμων, δεισιδαιμονία,” TDNT, II, 1–20, 9; J. K. Kuemmerlin-McLean – D. G. Reese, “Demon,” AYBD, II, 138–142 (OT 138– 140); G. J. Riley, “Demon,” DDD, 235–240; A. Lars, “The Greek δαίμων Between Mythos and Logos”, Die Dämonen : die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt = Demons : The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment (Hrsg. A. Lange – H. Lichtenberger – K.F. D. Römheld) (2003) 425–446. 434 See Foerster, “δαίμων,” 6.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 171

or unknown superhuman factor;” a “god, semi-divine or intermediary beings inferior to the gods;” “fortune” and also “demons” (understood as evil forces of supernatural origin). Giving to (evil) demons a location close to the earth, philosophy explained their wickedness, via Platonic thought, linking it to their relation to matter. The evil influence is thus compared to impulsion by cravings familiar to man (human “passions”), whether in the form of envy, self seeking desire of honour, thirst for blood or the odour of sacrifice.435 At a later state, the term δαιμόνιον, originally the neuter form of adjective δαιμόνιος develops. It is frequent in the magic papyri (200 BCE as their accepted terminus a quo).436 In brief, the idea of “demon” in Greek (δαίμων), although in origin only partially tinted with a negative colorfulness, develops in time mostly through the derived term δαιμόνιον to convey specifically the idea of wicked entities of supernatural origin (demons, in our common understanding). From the available evidence, ancient Jewish thought knows no concept of “demons with whom one may have dealings in magic even for the purpose of warding them off.”437 OT monotheism is thus maintained through the affirmation that no power man might turn to in any matter exists outside the one God of Israel. The LORD has absolute rule over matters of good and evil that befalls men. In the intertestamental period, however, Judaism will affirm a neat dualistic sense for the idea of supernatural creatures in some way related to the divine, but clearly separated from one another for their good or wicked essence, through the two different notions of “angels” and “demons.”438 According to Riley, “The inspiration for this shift in meaning was the encounter during the Exile and later with Zoroastrian dualism.”439 In Jewish Greek or Greek-translated literature then, the term δαίμων is avoided for its too close association with positive religious elements, whereas δαιμόνιον indicates from the very first the hostile spirits of popular belief.440 Jewish Greek translators will set a linguistic pattern in using the

435 See Foerster, “δαίμων,” 6. 436 See Foerster, “δαίμων,” 9. 437 See Foerster, “δαίμων,” 11. Regarding the idea of demons in the OT, see also I. Fröhlich, “«Invoke at any time...» : Apotropaic Texts and Belief in Demons in the Literature of the Qumran Community”, BN 137 (2008) 41–74, 44–48; C. Nihan, “Les habitants des ruins dans la Bible hébraïque”, Entre dieux et hommes: anges, démons et autres figures intermédiaires Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 19 et 20 mai 2014 (éds. T. Röhmer – B. Dufour – F. Pfitzmann – C. Uehlinger) (OBO 286; Göttingen 2017) 88–115. 438 See Martin, “When Did Angels Become Demons?”, 666; See Sacchi, Storia del Secondo Tempio, 302–329. 439 See G. J. Riley, “Demon,” 238. 440 See Foerster, “δαίμων,” 12. On the development of demonology and the typology of demonic entities in antiquity, passing through STP to late antiquity, although a bit outdated, we

172 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

term δαιμόνιον to refer to the general idea of supra-natural evil beings (also the preferred term of NT writers). According to Foerster, Tob 6:8ff., is the first indication of that new development according to which the spirits are brought into connection with man in a negative manner (thus affirming the idea of “evil spirits”).441 Asmodeus, described as “evil demon” in Tob 3:8.17, is alluded to as “demon or evil spirit” in Tob 6:8 and simply as “demon” or “the demon” thereon (6:14.16.18; 8:3). As sources from late antiquity show (for instance the Aramaic incantation texts), various categories of evil beings were seen at work in the world.442 In that light, the construction πνεύματος πονηροῦ in 6:8 seems to refer an alternative “class” of the demonic according to STP beliefs.443 Strictly speaking then, conjunction ἢ in Tob 6:8 is to be interpreted with its primary disjunctive sense. More freely, however, it could perhaps be also interpreted with a alternative disjunctive sense and thus epexegetical, for it finally explains the reader, what a δαιμόνιον according to the book of Tobit is (an evil spirit). We may recall in that regard 1 Enoch 15, which explains the demons as the spirits of the Giants (offspring of the Watchers and human women) killed in the flood that became evil.444 As Fröhlich stated, demons “are usually imagined as aeriform figures, often with a wind-like nature.”445 Such description seems fitting to the narrative description implicit in the scene of Tob 8 regarding Asmodeus’ flight from Ecbatana to Egypt, as result of the ritual performed by Tobiah. Moreover, demons in exorcism formulas from Qumran are frequently addressed as “spirits” ([‫))רוח]א‬.446 In some passages of the

vividly recommend Montgomery’s 1913 introduction to the Aramaic incantation texts (Cambridge reprint 2011) Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, 67–83. 441 Foerster, “δαίμων,” 12. 442 See Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, 73–78; Also interesting on the matter, L. Verderame, “Demons at Work in Ancient Mesopotamia”, Demons and Illness from Antiquity to the Early-Modern Period (S. Bhayron – C. Rider) (MRLA 5; Leiden – Boston, MA 2017) chap. 5, 61–78. 443 See Martin, “When Did Angels Become Demons?”, 667. 444 See I. Fröhlich, “‘Because He Loves Her...’ The Figure of the Demon in the Book of Tobit”, Studies in Memory of Alexander Fodor (ed. K. Dévényi) (The Arabist 37; Budapest 2016) 25–36, 28. 445 See Fröhlich, “Demons and Illness in Second Temple Judaism: Theory and Practice”, 81. 446 For instance in 4Q560 1 ii:5–6. See D. Hamidović, “Ilness and Healing through Spell and In- cantantion in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, Demons and Illness from Antiquity to the Early-Modern Period (S. Bhayron  – C. Rider) (MRLA 5; 2017) chap. 7, 97–110, 100. Josephus however in Bel. Jud. 7.185, gives different definition of what δαιμόνια is understood: “Yet, after all this pains in getting, it is only valuable on account of one virtue it has, that if it be only brought to sick persons, it quickly drives away those called demons, which are no other than the spirits of the wicked, that enter into men that are alive and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them.” (ἔστι δὲ μετὰ τοσούτων κινδύνων διὰ μίαν ἰσχὺν περισπούδαστος τὰ γὰρ καλούμενα δαιμόνια ταῦτα δὲ πονηρῶν ἐστιν ἀνθρώπων πνεύματα τοῖς ζῶσιν εἰσδυόμενα καὶ

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 173

NT (for instance in Lk 8:2,447 and 11:20–26), the concepts δαιμόνιον and πνεῦμα πονηρόν seem to be put in synonymic relationship.448 Lastly, as written and pictographic evidence suggests, demons were thought also able to materialize in some bizarre “composite beings, made up of the frightening aspects of animals, sometimes including human faces or bodies.”449 3.3.4.5 The Nature of Sarah’s Demonic Vexation The aforementioned discussion allow us now to draw a clearer picture of the narrator’s description of Sarah’s plight. As it appears, the description of her vexation according to the textual evidence from Tob 3:8.17; 6:8.14.18; 8:3, excludes any suspect of “possession”(understood as the demon’s appropriation of her body). Through the aspect of “encounter” that ἀπάντημα conveys, the narrator in GII helps us to understand that Sarah’s demonic vexation was something external to her and linked to the place where she tried consummating marriage. The prepositional phrases, “flee from him/her” (φεύξεται ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ) and “not remain with her” (οὐ μὴ μείνωσιν μετ᾽ αὐτου), stated by the angel in 6:8 reinforce that idea. The troublesome entity alluded to in 6:8, the angel describes as a “demon or evil spirit.” Accepting an explanatory sense for the phrase “evil spirit,” Raphael would then be describing the essence of a δαιμόνιον. The exact meaning of the demon’s evilness, the reader knows from the narrator’s words in 3:8. There, of the demon it is explicitly said that it is “murderer.” The nature of his killing activity however is not even suggested. In any case, the narrator’s description in 3:8 suggests that the demon is somehow envious of Sarah’s suitors and his

κτείνοντα τοὺς βοηθείας μὴ τυγχάνοντας αὕτη ταχέως ἐξελαύνει κἂν προσενεχθῇ μόνον τοῖς νοσοῦσι).; see in that regard D. Edelman, “Living with Ancestral Spirits in Judah in the Iron Age and Persian Period”, Entre dieux et hommes: anges, démons et autres figures intermédiaires Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 19 et 20 mai 2014. (OBO 286; Göttingen 2017) 135–171. 447 καὶ γυναῖκές τινες αἳ ἦσαν τεθεραπευμέναι ἀπὸ πνευμάτων πονηρῶν καὶ ἀσθενειῶν, Μαρία ἡ καλουμένη Μαγδαληνή, ἀφ᾽ ἧς δαιμόνια ἑπτὰ ἐξεληλύθει/ “and some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out (NAB).” 448 See Riley, “Demon,” 239 449 See Riley, “Demon,” 237; T. Sol. 18:1–2. See also A. Angelini, “L’imaginaire comparé du démoniaque dans les traditions de l’Israël ancien : le bestiaire d’Esaïe dans la Septante”, Entre dieux et hommes: anges, démons et autres figures intermédiaires Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 19 et 20 mai 2014 (éds. T. Röhmer – B. Dufour – F. Pfitzmann – C. Uehlinger) (OBO 286; Göttingen 2017) 116–234.

174 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

unfulfillable desire regarding her is the cause of the killing of Sarah’s seven previous “almost-husbands.”450 Sarah therefore is vexed by demonic activity, specifically in connection with her intents of marriage consummation. The manner in which such evil befell her is kept hidden by the narrator and thus left merely to the reader’s speculation. The spiritual evil entity that “hunts” Sarah, appears affirmed present and active in her room only when it becomes a bridal chamber, i.e., when marriage consummation is about to take place in it. Thus, the connection of the demon with the sexual sphere emerges as an important component for our interpretation of the argument. The smoke of the burned caught fish’s heart and liver, according to Azariah’s statement (still to be completed with the angel’s description in 6:17–18), has the potentiality of driving out and away such evil being from Sarah’s thereabouts, thus allowing her to become a spouse. Therefore, the angel’s words deep down are part of the construction of the author’s positive views on human sexuality. Although in v.8, Azariah-Raphael’s annotations to Tobiah in that regard, according to the narrative articulation of the section, is given merely in general terms (i.e. with respect to a “man or a woman” vexed by a demon), to the reader it becomes an important revelation about the manner in which Sarah’s plight will be resolved. As discussed further below, much of irony is detected in the motif, even touching the burlesque, through which the narrator seems to continue his work of critique and deconstruction of some popular held views of his time.

Excursus 3 – Fish Heart & Liver’s Motif in Tobit. A Source-Critical Inquiry Whereas Tobit’s motif of fish-gall for healing eyes’ disease, is well attested as a medical procedure in the ANE (see discussion further below), fish heart and liver’s fumigation for apotropaic purposes is unique to Tobit. The use of vile-smelling smoke to exorcise evil spirits appears to have been a widespread technique throughout the ancient world.451 Kollmann in his study alludes to documented

450 Some more light on the matter may come if we read the motif in the background of the Enoch tradition. See for instance, L. T. Stuckenbruck, “The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4 in the Second and Third Centuries B.C.E.”, The Fall of the Angels (eds. C. Auffarth – L. T. Stuckenbruck) (TBN 6; Leiden 2004) 87–118. 451 See Moore, Tobit, 201; L. T. Stuckenbruck, “The Book of Tobit and the Problem of ‘Magic’”, Jüdische Schriften in ihrem antik-jüdischen und urchristlichen Kontext (Hrsg. H. Lichtenberger – G. S. Oegema) (Gütersloh 2002) 258–269, 263; R. Schmitt, “Magie und rituelles Heilen im Alten

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 175

practices in hellenistic Egypt and Assyria-Babylon of burning fish’s “mouth” or “bones” for apotropaic purposes.452 Josephus453 and later Rabbinic literature454 also know of using strong smells for driving away demons (practice also mentioned in Greek Magical Papyri455). However, as Kollmann categorically stated, “Speziell für die antidämonische Verbrennung von Fischorganen gibt es in der antiken Magie offenkundig keine Parallelen.”456 Furthermore, it is worthy mentioning that the most diffused practice for expelling demons (often considered the cause of diseases), appears to have been, also among the Jews, that of “spellings,”457 which after NT times, becomes a “word of command issued in the power of God and not by invocation of a superior but essentially similar spirit, nor by the use of material media.”458 Contrary to the term “heart,” references to the “liver” in biblical tradition is rather rare. The burning of animal liver or more precisely of the liver’s “lobe” (MT: ‫ יתרת על־הכבד‬/LXX: λοβός τοῦ ἥπατος) regularly of calves or rams, paired with the “fat from the loins” and the two kidneys, is mentioned few times in the sacrificial legislation of our present Leviticus and Exodus.459 Such practice is associated with different types of burning offerings to be presented as a“sweet-smelling oblation to the LORD” (LXX: εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας κυρίῳ, with slight variations in its formulation according to contexts).460 As it appears, the “liver” was seen by

Testament”, Zauber und Magie im antiken Palästina und in seiner Umwelt. Kollo- quium des Deutschen Vereins zur Erforschung Palästinas, 14.–16.11.2014, Mainz (Hrsg. J. Kamlah- Idan – R. Schafer – M. Witte) (ADPV 46; 2017) 183–197; A bit outdated, but still recommended the interesting article of H. Humphreys, “Magic and Medicine”, Antiquity 27/107 (1953) 144–148. 452 See B. Kollmann, “Göttliche Offenbarung magisch-pharmakologischer Heilkunst im Buch Tobit”, ZAW 106/2 (1994) 289–299, 292–293. 453 See Ant. Jud. VIII, 47; De Bell. Jud. VII, 185. 454 See for instance Pesiqta’ Rabbati 14,14. 455 See for instance, PGM, XIII, 242–244. 456 Kollmann, “Göttliche Offenbarung”, 292. 457 See H. Miller, “The Medicine of the Ancient Jews”, Western Journal of Medicine 47/1 (1937) 38–40; E. M. Yamauchi, “Magic or Miracle? Diseases, Demons and Exorcisms”, The Miracles of Jesus (eds. D. Wenham – C. Blomberg) (Gospel Perspectives 6; Sheffield 1986) 89–183, 66–70. 458 See Foerster, “δαίμων,” 19. 459 See Exod. 29:13.22; Lev. 3:4.10.15; 4:9; 7:4; 8:16.25; 9:10.19. 460 The term “ὀσμή” found in such laws, occurs in Raphael’s mouth while ulteriorly describing the apotropaic ritual, in Tob 6:17b–18a. Such link in our view may not be merely casual. The idea of “smelling” seems significant by contrast, for the sense of Tobiah’s expelling “ritual” regarding the demon, as explained further below. See A. Lallemand, “Les Parfums dans le Roman Grec”, Le Monde du Roman Grec. Actes du colloque international tenu à l’École normale supérieure (Paris 17–19 décembre 1987) (ed. M.-F. Baslez – P. Hoffmann – M. Trédé) (Études de Littérature

176 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

biblical authors as a vital organ, the source of blood in the body (together with the heart), which is identified with life itself.461 In fact, the liquid “blood” and the solid “fat” were seen as body substances essential for life.462 In that, OT shares diffused views of the ANE. Although the term “blood” does not occur in Tobit, the idea of “life” related to the “liver” and “heart” in their connection with it appears significant. Noteworthy, OT sacrificial legislation, has no reference whatsoever to the burning of animal’s “heart” in any of its rituals.463 Tobit’s most plausible cultural milieu (Hellenism in Ptolemaic times), also offers elements worthy taking into consideration. Interesting ideas related to the “liver” are mentioned both in Greek medical and literary-mythological traditions. Ancient Mesopotamians considered the liver the central organ of the human body, seat of life and the soul (for its richness in blood), emotions and intelligence.464 Such view seems to have influenced the Greeks. Tragedians from the classical period already refer the “liver” as the seat of emotions.465 Greek ἧπαρ, also spelled ἧδαρ, may have had its root in the term ἡδονὴ, “pleasure.”466 The above mentioned views seems to be reflected in some manner in famous Greek myths like that of Prometheus, punished by the gods to have his liver eaten by an eagle during the day, which regenerated over night.467 The regenerative capacity of the Ancienne 4; Paris 1992) 75–83; H. J. L. Jensen, “Family, Fertility and Foul Smell: Tobit and Judith”, Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. R. J. Bredin) (LSTS 55; 2006) 129–139. 461 (As suggested by Pro 7:23; Lam 2:11 and affirmed for instance in Lev 17:11; Deut 12:23. 462 See S. David Sperling, “Blood,” AYBD, I, 761–763, 761 463 See J. Behm, “καρδία,” TDNT, III, 610. The term “heart” occurs once in Lev 19:17, clearly with a transposed sense and in relation to the love of one’s neighbor. 464 See M. A. Riva, et al. “«The City of Hepar»: Rituals, Gastronomy, and Politics at the Origins of the Modern Names for the Liver”, JHepatol 55 (2011) 1132–1136, 1133. 465 For instance Sophocles, Ajax, 938: “Intense anguish, I know, pierces the liver” (χωρεῖ πρὸς ἧπαρ, οἶδα, γενναία δύη; Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 432. 466 Although Chatraine’s famous etymologic dictionary does not register it (see P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue greque: Histoire des mots (Paris 1968) 414); ancient Byzantine lexicographers know such etymology. See Pseudo-Zonaras, Lexicon, 1002, 1; Etymologicum Gudianum, 246, 39; Etymologicum Magnum, 433, 15. Also Meletius, the byzantine monk, known for having practiced medicine and been a commentator of Hippocrates,; refers such etymology. See Meletius, De natura hominis, 102, 28. Regarding Meletius, see P. Prioreschi, A History of Medicine. Vol. IV. Byzantine and Islamic Medicine (Omaha 2001) 98–100. 467 “And ready-witted Prometheus he bound with inextricable bonds, cruel chains, and drove a shaft through his middle, and set on him a long-winged eagle, which used to eat his immortal liver; but by night the liver grew as much again everyway as the long-winged bird devoured in the whole day” (δῆσε δ᾽ ἀλυκτοπέδῃσι Προμηθέα ποικιλόβουλον δεσμοῖς ἀργαλέοισι μέσον διὰ κίον᾽ ἐλάσσας: καί οἱ ἐπ᾽ αἰετὸν ὦρσε τανύπτερον: αὐτὰρ ὅ γ᾽ ἧπαρ ἤσθιεν ἀθάνατον, τὸ δ᾽ ἀέξετο ἶσον ἁπάντη νυκτός ὅσον πρόπαν ἦμαρ ἔδοι τανυσίπτερος ὄρνις.) Hesiod, Theogony, 523–524.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 177

liver, although discussed whether known by ancient Greek physicians, in any case stresses organ’s significance as source of life. Homer in the Odyssey, evokes the (perhaps less known) myth of Tityos, chastised by the gods because of his lust, also with a punishment in his liver.468 In light of the aforementioned elements we better understand why animal’s liver was highly valued in ANE cultures and by the Greeks as material for extispicy (interpretation of animal entrails, especially of sacrificed ones).469 The rationale of such preference, as explained by Jastrow, seems to have been the view that through liver inspection, the “haruspex” (“liver-inspector priest”) could enter the workshop of the gods, see them at work, forging future events and weaving the fabric of human fortunes.470 Such explanation justifies Mesopotamia’s “hepatocentrism,” in considering the “liver,” as the central organ of the human body, the seat of life, soul, emotions, and intelligence.”471 “There is general scholarly agreement,” states Collins, “that extispicy originated in Mesopotamia among Babylonians and Assyrians, from where it moved west to the Hittites in Asia Minor and from there to Greece.”472 LXX translator of the book of Ezekiel, uses the technical term for liver’s extispicy,“hepatoscopy,” in Ezek 21:26 (ἡπατοσκοπήσασθαι), while alluding to that practice among the Babylonians. Hapax in the LXX, verb ἡπατοσκοπέω means precisely “to inspect the liver for soothsaying.”473 Within such well documented practices and views, again, no reference to the use of fish’s liver, for any purpose whatsoever, is found.

468 “And I saw Tityos, son of glorious Gaea, lying on the ground. Over nine roods he stretched, and two vultures sat, one on either side, and tore his liver, plunging their beaks into his bowels, nor could he beat them of with his hands.” (καὶ Τιτυὸν εἶδον, Γαίης ἐρικυδέος υἱόν, κείμενον ἐν δαπέδῳ: ὁ δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἐννέα κεῖτο πέλεθρα, γῦπε δέ μιν ἑκάτερθε παρημένω ἧπαρ ἔκειρον, δέρτρον ἔσω δύνοντες, ὁ δ᾽ οὐκ ἀπαμύνετο χερσί). See Od., 11, 576–579. 469 See in that regard D. Pardee, “Divinatory and Sacrificial Rites”, NEA 63/4 (2000) 232–234; D. Collins, “Mapping the Entrails: The Practice of Greek Hepatoscopy”, AJPh 129/3 (2008) 319–345; To get an idea of how the liver was interpreted, see the interesting article of U. Jeyes, “The «Palace Gate» of the Liver: A Study of Terminology and Methods in Babylonian Extispicy”, JCS 30/4 (1978) 209–233. 470 See M. Jastrow Jr, Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria (American Lectures on the History of Religions; New York – London 1911) 155–156. 471 See Riva, et al., “City of Hepar”, 1133. 472 See Collins, “Mapping the Entrails”, 320. As it appears, with the exception maybe of Egypt, hepatoscopy for divination was a diffused practice in the ANE, known also to most Canaanite cultures surrounding ancient Israel. See H. Niehr, Religionen in Israels Umwelt. Einfürung in die nordwest- semitischen Religionen Syrien-Palästinas (Würzburg 1998) I, 5.1. 473 See LS, 776.

178 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

In two contributions regarding Sarah’s vexation and deliverance,474 P. Haupt proposed interpreting the girl’s demonic “possession”475 as a case of hysteroepilepsy.476 If Sarah would have had “an epileptic seizure followed by a fit of hysterics” in the marriage night, considering the scaring features of such convulsions, explains Haupt, this would have “killed” her suitors not physically but symbolically (i.e. in their love for her).477 Haupt then goes on explaining that from old, hystero-epilepsy was checked by disagreeable odors.478 With respect to the use of fumes of burnt material to withhold epileptic seizure, Haupt evokes the testimony of Pliny, who mentions the burning of goats or deer’s horns for such purpose (horns were formerly much used source of ammo- nia).479 His explanation continues even more sophisticated, mentioning that isovaleric acid (substance akin to vegetal valerian) was also found in dolphin’s liver (animal formerly supposed to be a fish and some of whose species are found in sweet waters). In brief, his suggestion would be that Tobiah’s caught fish was meant to be a dolphin, whose heart and liver, burnt together with some roots of asafetida, was what served to expel Sarah’s “demon” (epileptic-hysteria). Another explanation for the use of “liver-heart” smoke was proposed by Levine. The author begins her explanation recalling the symbolism behind women’s names in Tobit. Whereas male names, following biblical tradition, are almost all theophoric female names would bear in one way or the other relation with procreation and conception. Thus, both Sarah and Hannah480 would evoke two emblematic bible figures of barrenness, while the name Edna would evoke

474 See Haupt, “Asmodeus”, 176–177; P. Haupt, “Tobit’s Blindness and Sara’s Hysteria”, PAPS 60/2 (1921) 71–95. 475 As mentioned above, the demon’s relationship with Sarah, according to the narrator’s description, is better described as vexation, considering the exterior nature of her vexation. 476 The idea of hysteria is explained in relation to the meaning of the demon’s name. “Asmodeus,” is proposed to derive from Persian Aeshma-daeva, Aeshma being the Avestan demon of rage, and daeva the common Persian term for “demon, devil.” Such would be the meaning subjacent to Hebrew “Ashmedai”. See Haupt, “Asmodeus”, 175–176; “Epilepsy was called morbus daemoniacus” Haupt, “Tobit’s Blindness and Sara’s Hysteria”, 85. 477 See Haupt, “Asmodeus”, 177. 478 “The specific remedy for epilepsy is bromide of potassium, and bromine is derived from βρῶμος, stench.” Haupt, “Asmodeus”, 177; One of the oldest attested remedies for hysteria, according to Haupt, was asafetida and valerian, odorous tree resins. “The old pharmaceutical name of asafetida is devil’s dung; so you can imagine the sweet smelling of this remedy.” See Haupt, “Tobit’s Blindness and Sara’s Hysteria”, 88. 479 See Pliny, Hist. Nat., 32, 226; Haupt, “Tobit’s Blindness and Sara’s Hysteria”, 88. 480 See Gen 11:30; 17:17; 1 Sam 1–2.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 179

“sexual pleasure.”481 Sarah’s demonic vexation in Tobit in fact signifies for her a permanence in the statute of “barren-widow” at young age.482 Levine then continues alluding to the testimony of Artemidorus,483 who in Oneirocritica (Book I, 44), would connect the heart with marriage and the liver with the production of male/female relationships.484 She then goes on to affirm that, “Both heart and liver may have been known to the author of Tobit as being involved in the production of sperm.” Thus Raphael’s advice to burn the organs so as to make smoke could be connected with the common ancient view that heat generates sperm.485 In his comparative study between the book of Tobit and of Judith, Hans Jensen offers still another proposal regarding the fish’s heart and liver.486 While presenting Tobiah as an anti-Judith character,487 Jensen explores the role that the “odorous” component plays regarding each character and in each plot. He first stresses the importance of aromatic substances in cultic milieu, which included ritual, place and personal, thus highlighting its relation and importance regarding the Divine. Then, the other typical use of aromatic substances which is erotic seduction. From that he concludes that, “the main function of perfume and fragrance is to act as mediators: perfume mediates between man and woman, just as incense mediates between beings and gods.”488 Upon the background of those premises, Jensen proposes seeing the connection between Tobit’s vile-smelling component, the book’s insistence in burial as an ethical duty (“chosen as a striking illustration of piety”).489 Interestingly, fragrance in Judith leads to seduction, murder and death; stinking smoke, to marriage consummation, fertility and new life. Strikingly, widow Judith through her art of seduction (implying perfume), finishes with the people’s evil adversary, but continues widow and childless, whereas Tobiah, by a God’s angel-instructed-action, aids Sarah to definitively

481 In fact, Hebrew ‫עדנה‬, meaning “lust, sexual pleasure” (see HALOT, I, 793) occurs in Gen 18:12 in Sarah’s mouth, while questioning her possibility of conceiving in old age. 482 See Levine, “Tobit”, 51. 483 Second century A.D. Greek author, who wrote a treatise on dream interpretation. 484 See Levine, “Tobit”, 64, note 15. 485 For such statement, Levine evokes the testimony of Aristotle, Generation of Animals, 717b24; 717a5; Plato, Timaeus, 69c–72d, 86c. See Levine, “Tobit”, 51 and 64 note 17. 486 See Jensen, “Family, Fertility and Foul Smell”, 135–137. 487 “Tobias is not only different from Judith he is an anti-Judith.” See Jensen, “Family, Fertility and Foul Smell”, 135. 488 See Jensen, “Family, Fertility and Foul Smell”, 133. 489 See Jensen, “Family, Fertility and Foul Smell”, 135. Tobit’s odour-motif appears to have made also an impact in the history of the effects of the text. See the interesting article of J. T. Bratcher, “Strong Odour and Other Parallels in the Book of Tobit and the Romance Sir Amadace”, Notes and Queries 54/4 (2007) 371–372, Also J. Milton, Paradise Lost, Book 4, 165–171.

180 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

vanquish her evil adversary, consummate her marriage, depose her robe of widowhood and become fertile. Paradoxically, unsavory weeding smoke leads to fertility and offspring, whereas fragrance, leads to sterility.490 Finally, the narrator’s play with spatial coordinates, appears also significant for the understanding of the liver and heart’s burning motif: a downwards movement of foul smelling substance (bird’s droppings) turns burier Tobit blind, whereas upwards movement also of foul smelling drives away Sarah’s killing demon down to Egypt, to be bound “hands and feet” forever.491 Last, a late reference pairing animal heart and liver is found in Eusebius of Caesarea (260/265–339/340 C.E.). In his Contra Hieroclem (“Against Hierocles”),492 a polemic treatise written somewhere in the fourth century C.E. (its date is still disputed), Eusebius criticizes the Roman aristocrat Hierocles for comparing in his work Lover of Truth (Φιλαλήθης), the pagan thaumaturge Apollonius of Tyana to Jesus Christ.493 In chapter X of his invective, Eusebius states that Apollonius learned his wisdom with the Arabians, who as a way of understanding birds for presage, eat “so they say, some of them the heart and others the liver of serpents” (Συμβάλλονται δὲ τῶν ἀλόγων, σιτούμενοι τῶν δρακόντων οί μὲν καρδίαν, φασὶν, οί δέ ήπαρ.).494 The Pythagorean (Hierocles) then is criticized for devouring heart and liver of serpents in order to participate in some form of wisdom common among the Arabs.

Summary In light of the aforementioned exposition, a simple explanation for Tobit’s motif of fish organs’ smoke for apotropaic purposes, from a source critical perspective, could be the author’s potential acquaintance with ANE diffused practice of using vile-smelling for exorcisms. Acquaintance with Temple’s sacrificial use of liver burning, may have also played a part in the constitution of the motif, together with ideas of the liver as source of life and seat of emotions, both in Mesopotamia (Assyria-Babylon) and Greece, as well as with the famous Greek myths that mention the liver as motif. The fact that the burning of animal’s heart is unattested both in OT and ANE sacrificial practices, suggests that some dynamics of symbol 490 “Both in ancient Greece and in the OT, we find that seduction and abundance (and perfume) were associated with sterility.” See Jensen, “Family, Fertility and Foul Smell”, 134. 491 See Jensen, “Family, Fertility and Foul Smell”, 136. 492 See Eusebius of Caesarea, Contra Hieroclem (PG 795–868). 493 Hierocles’ “Lover of Truth” is considered the first instance of that trope. 494 See Eusebius of Caesarea, Contra Hieroclem, X (PG 813A69).

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 181

may be implied in Tobit’s mention of it. Haupt’s interpretation of those motifs and the demon as a cipher of histero-epilepsy, appears to us a bit too sophisticated and considering Tobit’s narrative progression, also problematic.495 The themes of sexuality and offspring (and thus of life’s generation) seem meaningful in Tobit, as repeatedly stated. However, Levine’s proposal regarding “sperm production” connected with the burning of the fish organs, appears to us an extrapolation, simply considering the narrator’s description of Tob 8. Moreover, her allusion to Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica, besides being much later a text, does seem to take into consideration the sense the motifs of the heart and liver have in their context in that work.496 Eusebius’ mention of the heart and liver’s use among the Arabs constitutes a peculiar element. Besides being a later text, its relation to Tob 6 and therefore the author’s acquaintance with it difficult not to say impossible to demonstrate. 3.3.4.6 Irony and Humor in Tobit’s Heart & Liver Ritual? The aforementioned considerations, from a source critical point of view, expose to a certain extent another segment of Tobit 6’s narrative “underground” articulation. The elements that historical inquiry bring to surface, shed some light on the origin of Tobit’s fish organs’ motif, element that plays such an essential part at both story and discourse levels (plot development and denouement). Although attached to the essentials of Jewish belief, Tobit’s author appears attentive to his (plausible) surrounding cultural and religious milieu (hellenized ANE), towards which he continues to manifest both openness and reserve. From that dialogical process, our author appears to profit in several manners for his didactic story: he finds inspiration for his motifs, he reconsiders critically traditional ideas and views. The source critical argumentation, however broadens our understanding of the the books’ historical, religious and cultural horizons, helping us to realize even more the richness of chapter 6 and its sophisticate narrative and rhetorical articulation, constitutes only one step more in our understanding of the heart and liver motif’s rationale. 495 For instance, considering Tobiah’s words in 6:14–15, the themes of death and burial in Tobit, in light of the grave digging sequence of Tob 8:9–11, seems to demand a literal interpretation of them at story level. 496 In effect, in Artemidorus’ text, the mention of human’s heart and liver occurs in a dream interpretation of a person who sees his/hers own entrails. In that regard, the author affirms that if the person’s dream focuses in the heart, it may indicate, in a sort of augury, a husband or wife (if the dreamer is a man or woman); the liver would represent offspring, life and its concerns. For an English translation of Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica, see R. J. White, The Interpretation of Dreams. The Oneirocritica of Artemidorus (New Jersey 1975).

182 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

In the course of our exegesis in this chapter we have tried to underline whenever opportune, some of Tobit’s ironical puns, their typology and dynamics. In his 1973 commentary on Tobit, Alonso Schökel seems pioneer, in detecting not only the ironical twist implied in Tobit’s apotropaic incense recipe, but also its burlesque feature.497 His insight is worthy quoting integrally: “El sahumerio exorciza a Asmodeo («casi como un insecticida», piensa el lector burlándose del demonio). Y nos parece escuchar una risa burlona del autor.”498 In a later work on the prophets, while commenting on Dan 14:27 (LXX story of “Bel and the Dragon”), Alonso Schökel affirmed once more the irony in Tobit’s fishy ritual: “Hay ironía en esta receta matadragones, como la había en el perfume espanta demonios de Tobías 8,3. La campaña de los judíos contra los ídolos paganos se hará con la burla, sin palo ni cuchillo.”499 Already in 1749, Camilo Durante highlighted the burlesque aspect to Tobit’s “recipe” to drive away the demon although with a neat theological aspect: “Per umiliare e rendere più tormentosa al demonio la sua superbia, conferì il Signore le virtù di espellerlo, quasi fosse un vile infetto, anche alle cose più abiette del mondo sensibile, e de’ materiali composti, come presentemente al fumo d’una viscera d’un pesce estinto (...).”500 Aware or not of Alonso Schökel’s annotation, Nickelsburg also sustained the humorous aspect of Tobit’s recipe for boggling the demon: “The idea that the stench of roasted fish organs (now many days ripe) could drive off a demon was surely intended as humorous, though it may reflect some actual ritual.”501 Humorous appears also the fact that the smoky vile smell of the half-decayed fish’s organs did not drive young Tobiah and his bride away from the bridal chamber, together with the demon!502

497 On the issue of “humor” in Tobit, see H. S. Pyper, “‘Sarah is a Hero’: Kierkegaard’s Reading of Tobit in Fear and Trembling”, Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. R. J. Bredin) (LSTS 55; London-New York 2006) 59–71, 59–63; D. McCracken, “Narration and Comedy in the Book of Tobit”, JBL 114/3 (1995) 401–418; J. R. Cousland, “Tobit: A Comedy in Error?”, CBQ 65/4 (2003) 535–553. 498 See Alonso Schökel, – Iglesias González, Tobías, 75. 499 See L. Alonso Schökel, – J. L. Sicre Diaz, Profetas. II. Ezequiel, Doce Profetas Menores, Baruc, Daniel y Carta de Jeremías (Madrid 1987) 1308. 500 See C. Durante, La Sacra Storia Antica della Bibbia. Volume 5 (Roma 1749) 25. 501 See G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Tobit”, Harper’s Bible Commentary (ed. J. L. Mays) (New York, NY 1988) 791–803, 799; Nickelsburg’s 1988 views are restated in his contribution to a recent collective work. See Nickelsburg, “Tobit”, 2650; Nickelsburg clear statement is inversely presented in Moore’s commentary: “Clearly ancient ritual and, possibly, intended humor (Nickelsburg 1988a:799) are involved here.” See Moore, Tobit, 236. 502 See E. C. Bissell, The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, with Historical Introductions, a Revised Translation and Notes Critical and Explanatory (New York 1886) 136.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 183

It is noteworthy that irony, jest and humor are also detectable in other moments of the account of Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah (Tob 7–8). In the welcome scene, wrapped with emotion certainly intended to intensify the story’s drama, the fact that Raguel cries, then Edna cries and then Sarah, in sequence, at the news that the stranger is Tobit’s son, arouses also the comic (see Tob 7:1–8). Raguel’s solemn statement that he “did not have the power to give Sarah to anyone except you (Tobiah)” is loaded with verbal irony; its correction in sequence, appears tragicomic (see Tob 7:10–11). Then, while a positive process is taking place within the bridal chamber, Raguel’s digging of another grave hole with his servants, just in case things would go wrong again (for the eighth time in the row), to shortly after, fill it again with earth at the good news about the spouses, is also loaded with dramatic irony (see Tob 8:9b–18).503 Ironical appears also the fact that Tobiah, busy with his marriage feast, commands a for-the-reader angel of God to retrieve the money by Gabael in his instead, main reason of his journey (see Tob 9). The author’s recourse to irony and humor, detectable in several moments of Tobiah’s travel and his marriage process with Sarah, suggests the narrator’s interest in articulating a story that, serving didactic purposes, is also meant to entertain. Instruction through amusement may be flashing out that in fact, young Israelite exiles could be its potential intended target audience. In that light, our author emerges anything but a moralist. In fact, his Tobit-character seems meant to embody a stereotype which he wishes to criticize, together with several ideas of his cultural and religious surrounding.

Excursus 4 – The Book of Tobit and the Problem of Magic The argument of “magic” in ancient Israel, which OT only opens to us a window to, has been once and again discussed in the past three decades.504 Considering

503 “This is part of the irony in the Tobit story: the reader, but not Raguel, knows that there is no need of a grave.” See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 247. 504 For a first overview on the argument of magic in the ANE and the OT see, J. A. Scurlock – J. K. Kuemmerlin-McLean, “Magic,” ABYD, IV, 465–468 (ANE); 468–471 (OT); although outdated, still worthy reading the seminal work of J. Ennemoser, The History of Magic (London 1854) I, 1–72; E. M. Yamauchi, “Magic in the Biblical World”, Tyndale Bulletin 34 (1983) 169–200; See also on the argument, P. Schäfer, “Jewish Magic Literature in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages”, JJS 41.1 (1990) 75–91; P. Schäfer, “Magic and Religion in Ancient Judaism”, Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar and Symposium. (Leiden 1997) 19–43; T. Klutz, ed. Magic in the Biblical World. From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (LNTS 245; London – New York 2004); H. R. Jacobus, – A. K. De Hemmer Gudme, – P. Guillaume, eds. Studies on Magic and Divination in the Biblical World (Biblical Intersections 11; Piscataway, NJ 2013); S. Shaked, ed. Officina Magica : Essays on the Practice of Magic in Antiquity (IJS Studies in Judaica 4; Leiden – Boston

184 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

the contributions on the matter, one realizes among other things, that the very definition of “magic” phenomena, in various neighbor cultures and Israel, due to its variation over time both in sense and evaluation, in the various cultural and historical contexts,505 turns the issue even more complex to assess.506 “Although “magic” is notoriously difficult to define, and although we do make mistakes in the matter, we usually know magic when we see it.”507 The recourse to what is generally understood by “magic” (“rites and formulas conceived to coerce and manipulate preternatural forces of beings”508) was in fact a diffused phenomenon in the Ancient Near East. Moreover, although, as Yamauchi noted, “magic and religion are not mutually exclusive categories,”,509 and even if Cryer in his study concluded that “ancient Israel was a ‘magic’ society,”510 both OT and NT511 are rather polemic regarding “magic.” Perhaps for its intimate relation

(MA) 2005); G. Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic. A History (Cambridge  – New York  – Melbourne 2008) 8–69; D. J. Collins S.J., ed. The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West. From Antiquity to the Present (New York, NY 2015); Bae’s recent article presents a thorough bibliography on the argument. See B. Hee-Sook, “Elijah’s Magic in the Drought Narrative: Form and Function”, BN 169 (2016) 11–26, 24–26; On the more general issue of magic in ancient Greek world, see M. W. Dickie, Magic and Magicians in Greek Roman World (London 2003); see also E. Lévi, The History of Magic. Including a Clear and Precise Exposition of Its Procedure, Its Rites and Its Mysteries (Translated by Arthur Edward Waite) (London 1913) 82–91. 505 See for instance in that regard the contributions on G. Bohak, – Y. Harari, – S. Shaked, eds. Continuity and Innovation in the Magic Tradition (Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 15; Leiden 2011) 506 The problem of the definition of magic seems to have been present since the beginnings of modern research on the argument. See for instance Lévi, The History of Magic. Including a Clear and Precise Exposition of Its Procedure, Its Rites and Its Mysteries (Translated by Arthur Edward Waite), 1–35; Schäfer, “Magic and Religion in Ancient Judaism”, 19–26; Y. Harari, “What is a Magical Text? Methodological Reflections Aimed at Redefining Early Jewish Magic”, Officina Magica : Essays on the Practice of Magic in Antiquity (Ed. S. Shaked) (Studies in Judaica 4; Leiden – Boston, MA 2005) 91–124, Interesting on regard,; the difficulty seems to remain even in recent studies. See S. Ortal-Paz, Jewish Love Magic: From Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages (MRLA 6; Leiden – Boston (MA) 2017) 5–13. 507 See F. H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Environment. A Socio- Historical Investigation (JSOT.SS 142; Sheffield 1994) 42. 508 The definition is A. M. Reimer’s. See A. M. Reimer, “Virtual Prision Breaks: Non-Escape Narratives and the Definition of «Magic»”, Magic in the Biblical World. From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (ed. T. Klutz) (JSNT.SS 245; London-New York 2004) 125–139, 125; Quoted in Hee-Sook, “Elijah’s Magic in the Drought Narrative: Form and Function”, 11. 509 See Yamauchi, “Magic in the Biblical World”, 174. 510 See Cryer, Divination, 324. 511 On the various forms of “magical” practices condemned in the OT, see Deut 18:9–14. For NT’s negative views on magic see for instance in Act 8:9–25; 13:6–12; Rev 18:21–24.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 185

to idolatry and pagan practices, and for the diffused idea that magicians are those who achieve real contact with demons,512 such polemics appears to serve clearly apologetic purposes in the affirmation of Judaic monotheistic belief. “The Bible forbids the practice of magic which it links specifically to human reliance on powers other than God. The penalty for engaging in magical practice is death.”513 Notwithstanding that, several commentators spoke an aspect of “magic” involved in Tobit’s prescriptions regarding the fish’s organs, particularly with respect to the apotropaic use of the “heart and liver.” Dancy in his commentary sustained that, “Fumigation was regularly recommended in ancient Magical texts for driving away demons.”514 Kollmann for his part is categorical stating that, “Bei der Vertreibung des Dämons Asmodaios durch das Räuchern von Leber und Herz des Fisches (8,2f.) handelt es sich um einem genuin magischen ritus ohne jegliche medizinischen Implikationen.”515 Schüngel-Straumann in the same line wrote that, “Für Herz und Leber, die für diesen Ritus verbrannt werden, gibt es zahlreiche Beispiele aus hellenistischen Zeit, die magische Praktiken zur Vertreibung von Dämonen beschreiben”516; Ego for her part, on commenting Tob 8:3 (the enactment of the exorcism by Tobiah), suggested that correspondences could be found between Tobit’s idea of demonic “binding” and the one found in ancient Aramaic Magic texts via the verb ‫“( אסר‬to bind”),517 used in those texts as part of the vocabulary (also) for demonic binding.518 Fröhlich seems to hold a more balanced view, although still alluding to magic: “Exorcising the demon

512 See Foerster, “δαίμων,” 12. See also in that regard M. D. Bailey, “Diabolic Magic”, The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West. From Antiquity to the Present (ed. D. Collins) (Cambridge – New York – Melbourne 2015) chap. 12, 361–392. 513 See Exod 22:17; Lev 20:27; M. L. Grossman, “Magic”, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (ed. A. Berlin) (New York (NY) 2011) 463–464. 514 See Dancy, Shorter Books of the Apocrypha, 39. 515 See Kollmann, “Göttliche Offenbarung”, 292; See also Moore, Tobit, 201–202.207.209. 516 See Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 118. 517 “Dieser Exorzismus, der für den palästinischen Bereich ganz unüblich ist, findet Entsprechungen in aramäischen Zaubertexten, in denen der Terminus ‫ אסר‬erscheint.” See Ego, Buch Tobit, 972. 518 As sample of that use of ‫ אסר‬in the bowls, see in for instance bowl 8 or bowl 12b in J. Naveh, S. Shaked, eds. Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem 1985) 173.193 respecively; In that regard however, we may bear in mind that the corpus of Aramaic magic texts are very far in time from Tobit (dated mostly from Sasanian Period and thus roughly mid-third to seventh century C.E.) and a series of steps seem needed to link both text through the idea of binding. See in that regard E. M. Yamauchi, “Aramaic Magic Bowls”, JAOS 85/5 (1965) 511–523; Naveh, – Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic

186 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

goes on with the help of prayer and materia magica.”519 Grabbe, although realizing that the motif in Tobit “is an indication that there was no clear separation between magic and medicine in antiquity;” and that “many medicines seemed to have symboli- cal and magical properties rather than being thought to work by biochemistry alone;” hold finally the common accepted view: “For the original readers, magic was a serious business and this was a magical deed (...).”520 And Otzen goes on to the extreme of stating that, “It is obvious that Raphael, healing Tobit and Sarah, is portrayed as the pagan magician.”521 The very presence of the term φάρμακον in our Greek Tobit522 (in our chapter in 6:5b.7), considering its mostly polemic use in the LXX (in contexts related to witchcraft and sorcery) seems to suggest the problem already at a linguistic level. Being that the most diffused view among modern Tobit’s commentators, Stuckenbruck does not hesitate to affirm that, “Although no exact parallel exists in ancient sources for burning the organs of a fish to expel demonic power, no one has yet doubted that this technique has a «magical» character (...).”523 The author however mistakes: at least one among modern Tobit commentators seems to contest such view: “Some have interpreted Tobiah’s action as a magic ritual, from the various used in his time. But this is unthinkable of a Jewish author so observant of the Law (...).”524 Even when magic and medicine in antiquity were closely related,525 Incantations of Late Antiquity, 13; but also S. Shaked, – J. N. Ford, – Bhayro, eds. Aramaic Bowl Spells: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls vol. 1. (MRLA 1; Leiden – Boston (MA) 2013) 1–2; also C. H. Gordon, “An Aramaic Incantation”, AASOR 14 (1933/34) 141–144, 1. 519 See Fröhlich, “‘Because He Loves Her...’ The Figure of the Demon in the Book of Tobit”, 29. 520 See Grabbe, “Tobit”, 742–743. 521 See Otzen, Tobit and Judith, 48. One should ask how would that be the case, above of all, considering that it is NOT Raphael who heals Tobit and Sarah, but only reveals the means for the healings.; Such misreading regarding Raphael’s work in the story is repeatedly found. See for instance in the interesting contribution of Hamidović, “Ilness and Healing through Spell and Incantantion in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 104. 522 Greek φάρμακον as stated before may signify “remedy, medicine” but also “enchanted potion” or even “poison.” 523 See Stuckenbruck, “Problem of Magic”, 263. 524 “Algunos han interpretado la acción de Tobías como un rito mágico de los muchos que se practicaban en su tiempo. Pero esto es impensable en un autor judío tan observante de la Ley (...).” See Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 147. 525 As Pfeiffer stated, “It is idle to attempt to separate the supernatural from the natural in the tale, for they are too intimately woven.” See Pfeiffer, History of the New Testament Times, 265; A good illustration of that we find precisely in the theme of demons: as noted before, several illnesses, psychical disorders, afflictions and epidemies, from old passing through NT times and continuing still later, were seen as work of demons. See Fröhlich, “Apotropaic Texts”, 47; See also in that regard, Mujais, “The Future of the Realm: Medicine and Divination in Ancient Syro-Mesopotamia”, AJN 19 (1999) 133–139; Fröhlich, “Medicine and Magic”, 195–196.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 187

the problem is however delicate: how would it be possible for an angel of God to propose magic-medical procedures for healing pious Israelites, considering the strict prohibitions of the Torah in that matter? In his seminal study on “magic and medicine” in Tobit, even if sustaining so clearly a view that magic is in effect implied in the fish organs’ prescriptions, Kollmann suggested considering the two procedures regarding the fish’s organs in their own right. According to that view, the well attested use of fish gall for eye’s disease in the ANE would advocate for its medical feature in Tobit (and therefore the gall would be a “medicine” tout court).526 The burning of the heart and liver for Sarah’s healing, on the contrary, would constitute a magic ritual simpliciter. Stuckenbruck criticized Kollmann’s proposal, for construing his argumentation only upon GI readings527 and for distinguishing too neatly the two procedures which in Tobit’s author view, as it appears, are grouped under the same concept (φάρμακον) and thus put at the same “level” so to speak. “For the author,” affirms Stuckenbruck, “«magic» and «medicine», however these categories are defined, are virtually indistinguishable.”528 Moreover, Stuckenbruck not only supports the idea of the magico-medical nature of the fish organs’ use in Tobit, but also sustains that in the book they are justified “on condition that they are knowledge revealed through an angel sent by God.” In other words, it is the divine origin of that procedure, revealed through an emissary of God (as in later book of Jubilees), that would legitimize it in Tobit author’s eyes.529 The problem of magic in Tobit is intensified, if we recall once more Enoch’s views on regard.530 Enoch, among other things, tried to offer a postexilic rationale for the origin of the demonic. Interestingly, in Enoch stories, four basic concepts, in some way or another also present in Tobit, are interconnected: sin and impurity, magic and the demonic.531 According to the book(s) of Enoch, the “Watchers,” sinful angels who had sexual intercourse with women, were responsible for teaching mankind through them, among other things, “magical 526 According to Kollmann’s description of Tobiah’s procedures regarding the fish gall, an aspect of magic would also be implied in its medical use, considering Tobiah’s conjunction (according to him) of the words θάρσει πάτερ (“Courage, father!”) with the application of the materia medica. See Kollmann, “Göttliche Offenbarung”, 294. 527 In Stuckenbruck’s view, as he has insisted in various of his contributions on Tobit, arguments on Tobit are to be considered taking into consideration the various readings of Tobit’s textual traditions. See Stuckenbruck, “Problem of Magic”, 262–268. 528 See Stuckenbruck, “Problem of Magic”, 268. 529 See Stuckenbruck, “Problem of Magic”, 262. 530 For a complete summary of the Enoch tradition, see Fröhlich, “Apotropaic Texts”, 55–59. 531 See Fröhlich, “Apotropaic Texts”, 48.53–58.

188 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

practices,” understood as “sorcery,” the use of “spellbinding,” and “cutting of roots” and showing of plants.532 The later appears to signify the use of herbal ingredients to magic and making of amulets with herbs and roots.533 Although Enoch does not state clear views regarding “physicians and medicines,” its polemic against “phytotherapy” could suggest a negative view also in that regard.534 Tob 2 appears to criticize physicians and medical procedures in its used of the term φάρμακον for “medicine.” Tobit’s personal (i.e. “autobiographical”) account of his blindness process, even suggests that it was finally caused by doctor’s use of φάρμακα (see Tob 2:10). Tob 6 on its part, insists in the idea of “healing” through that very same concept (regarding both Tobit and Sarah). The corollary of that narrative situation seems to be that, in character Tobit’s views, human φάρμακα worsen corporal diseases, whereas in the author’s, divine revealed φάρμακον can bring cure. In that our author appears attached to OT traditional theologoumenon, stated in Exod 15:26, that the LORD alone is the “physician/healer” of Israel (‫)כי אני יהוה רפאך‬.535 Such postulate is affirmed narratively through both Tobit-character’s polemic with human physicians and medicines, and the author’s more positive views of it, through the very name of God sent angel (“Raphael,” i.e. God heals) and his revelation in chapter 6. In Tobit however, there is already a progression regarding the traditional view, in that, according to its author, through angelic mediation, God may (also) reveal healing “matter and form” in favor of his people (i.e. “materia medica” and the effective manner of using it). Our author’s view, whether from his own wit or from a given source, seems to pave the way for later Jubilees’s views.536 Its author(s), seem(s) to offer an alternative view to Enoch, stating that good “Watchers” taught medicine and remedies to (righteous) Noah after the flood.537 However, a positive view of

532 “And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants.” See 1 En. 7:1. 533 See Fröhlich, “Apotropaic Texts”, 56. 534 According to Stuckenbruck, Enoch’s Book of Watchers condemns the use of medicines. See L. T. Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 335; Tübingen 2014) 31–33, 32. 535 See Kollmann, “Göttliche Offenbarung”, 289–290; Stuckenbruck, “Problem of Magic”, 258–259. 536 See Nickelsburg, “Tobit, Genesis and the Odyssey”, 48–51; See also in that regard, Nickelsburg, “Jubilees”, 89–118. 537 “And one of us He commanded that we should teach Noah all their medicines; for He knew that they would not walk in uprightness, nor strive in righteousness. And we did according to all

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 189

human physicians and medicine has to wait until Sirach’s creation theology.538 If Jubilees antecedes Sirach’s composition, both it and Tobit would consitute interesting links in the chain of development of Jewish thought towards a positive evaluation of medicine (in whose history Judaism will also give important contributions down the centuries). Furthermore, in light of the aforementioned considerations, we may say that Tobit shares some of Enoch’s ideas regarding angelic mediation of knowledge, particularly regarding properties of created things. Contrary to Enoch’s negative view in that regard, however, Tobit not only offers a positive counterpart on the argument, but also contributes with several novelties to the angelology, apparently in “effervescence” during Hellenistic times. Our author’s view, in fact, is nuanced and to the best of our knowledge, unique in its order. On the one hand, Tobit narratively insists the idea that the healing of his righteous faithful ones in exile shall come from God. On the other, however, their expected healings is affirmed to come not only through angelic mediation but also through human cooperation. In fact, God sent angel Raphael, acts during the whole of the narrative disguised as human Azariah and Azariah-Raphael, acts primarily as mediator of knowledge, revealing the correct means for the expected and announced healings. Surprisingly, as we have been insisting in the course of our exegesis, its performance involves a merely human character, concretely, young Tobiah in an ever growing manner from chapter 6 onwards. Noteworthy, regarding Sarah’s “healing,” Raphael does play an active role, besides revealing the healing matter, assuring Tobiah’s acceptance of marrying Sarah, also in binding Asmodeus in Egypt (as reported to the reader alone in 8:2 with no knowledge of the characters). Such angelic intervention reassures narratively, the fulfillment of the angel’s promise to Tobiah in 6:8.17,539 that the burning of the fish’s heart and liver would warrant that demonic vexations

His words: all the malignant evil ones we bound in the place of condemnation, and a tenth part of them we left that they might be subject before Satan on the earth. And we explained to Noah all the medicines of their diseases, together with their seductions, how he might heal them with herbs of the earth. And Noah wrote down all things in a book as we instructed him concerning every kind of medicine. Thus the evil spirits were precluded from (hurting) the sons of Noah.” See Jub. 10:10–13. According to Gen 5:18–20, Jared, the sixth generation of Adam and Eve, was the father of Enoch. According to Jubilees 4:15 (Greek), it was at the time of Jared that sourcery and magic (paired with “licentiousness, adultery and unjustice”) entered mankind (νῦν δὲ ἐν χρόνοις τοῦ Ἰάρεδ καὶ ἐπέκεινα φαρμακεία καὶ μαγεία, ἀσέλγεια, μοιχεία τε καὶ ἀδικία). 538 See Kollmann, “Göttliche Offenbarung”, 290–291; Stuckenbruck, “Problem of Magic”, 261–262. 539 “καὶ οὐ μὴ μείνωσιν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα /καὶ οὐκέτι μὴ φανῇ περὶ αὐτὴν τὸν πάντα αἰῶνα.»

190 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

would disappear forever. Tobit’s motif of Asmodeus’ binding “hand and foot,” appears to be a literary topos.540 In Enoch’s tradition, in fact, good angel Raphael is commanded by the Lord to bind evil Watcher Azael, hand and feet, and cast into the darkness which is in some place in the desert.541 “Ancient Egypt was often regarded as the home of magic and witchcraft,”542 and as explained before, magic was seen in antiquity as the realm of demons. In that light, Tobit’s (ironical) recounting of Asmodeus’ binding in Egypt, may be seen also as a refined critique of magic and of Egypt, which is thus affirmed to be a locale of demons by the narrator. At this point, two questions regarding the argument of magic in Tob 6/8 intrinsically related to one another may be posed 1) how should we categorize Sarah’s plight or in what terms should we speak of it?; and 2) what is exactly the function of the “smoky” ritual for the demon’s banishment? A proper answer to these questions may guide us towards a balanced conclusion on the issue of magic in Tobit. With respect to question (1), we may first notice that in Tob 3:17 while announcing the mission of angel Raphael, the narrator speaks of “healing” regarding both Tobit and Sarah’s plight (ἰάσασθαι τοὺς δύο). Therefore, Sarah’s deliverance from the demon is to be considered also a type of ἴασις (“healing, cure”). Notwithstanding that, the nature of both their distress and healing appears essentially different, although peculiarly in 3:17 GII, for both healings, a Greek verb of the same root, respectively ἀπολῦσαι and λῦσαι, is used (perhaps for sharing at a semantic level the same basic idea of “release, alleviation”). In that regard, however, a major difference occurs in the Greek witnesses regarding both verbs. Regarding Sarah’s “healing” specifically, the narrator affirms that Raphael is sent by God to λῦσαι (i.e. “loose, untie, unbind, set free, release”) the evil demon Asmodeus from (around) her (ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς) whereas in GI, to δῆσαι (i.e. “bind,” totally the opposite action).543 GI reading could be explained as the result of harmonization with the angel’s work in 8:3 (Asmodeus’s binding in Egypt). Dion in fact interpreted the use of δῆσαι in 3:17

540 Fröhlich, “Apotropaic Texts”, 52.56. 541 “And again the Lord said to Raphael: ‘Bind Aza’el hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein (καὶ τῷ Ῥαφαὴλ εἶπεν· Δῆσον τὸν Ἀζαὴλ ποσὶν καὶ χερσίν, καὶ βάλε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ σκότος, καὶ ἄνοιξον τὴν ἔρημον τὴν οὖσαν ἐν τῷ Δαδουὴλ κἀκεῖ βάλε αὐτόν). See 1 En. 10:4. The similarities with Tob 8:3, are noteworthy (καὶ ἡ ὀσμὴ τοῦ ἰχθύος ἐκώλυσεν καὶ ἀπέδραμεν τὸ δαιμόνιον ἄνω εἰς τὰ μέρη Αἰγύπτου καὶ βαδίσας Ῥαφαὴλ συνεπόδισεν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ καὶ ἐπέδησεν παραχρῆμα. 542 See Gen 41:8.24; Exod 7:11.22; 8:3.14–15; 9:11; 1QapGen 20:20; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 243. 543 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 115; Moore, Tobit, 161.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 191

(GI) as an anticipation of 8:3, where verb δῆσαι also occurs,544 interpretation that fits the proleptic feature of the pericope (3:16–17).545 Moreover, he proposed verb ‫ פטר‬as the Aramaic underlying Greek λῦσαι, which then would be the more original reading. He argued that verb ‫ פטר‬is a technical term used in both secular Babylonian divorce documents and in religious exorcisms.546 In light of that the sense of λῦσαι in Tob 3:17 would be that of “divorce” in the technical sense used in Babylonian prayers of exorcism.547 In any case, the reading of GII (λῦσαι ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς) may be seen as the lectio difficilior for Tob 3:17, being also narratively coherent with the story. Raphael in fact, is sent primarily to give Sarah, the daugther of Raguel as wife for Tobiah (3:17a), for whose fulfilment Asmodeus’ release from her was a conditio sine qua non for Tobiah’s becoming her spouse. For such purpose, the angel teaches Tobiah how to λῦσαι Asmodeus from Sarah (en passant, narrative articulation that once more emphasizes Tobiah’s leadership in the healing processes). In that light and considering that only the reader comes to know about it (none of the characters do, including Tobiah), the account of the demon’s binding in Egypt appears of secondary nature. In effect, it seems to serve as the narrative enactment of the angel’s statement in 6:8 about the person’s definitive deliverance from a demon, and off course, another of the author’s refined twists of irony and jest. But, would not such language of binding-unbinding also typical of spells and incantations, be an intensifier of Tobit’s link with magic? In her commentary to Tob 8:3, Ego also referred to a passage of the Antiquities,548 as a parallel text for the use of smoke to expel demons. In such passage, Josephus recounts about a certain Eleazar who used a ring with a root in it and spells composed by Solomon to drive out a demon. To be noted however, Josephus there does not mention the burning of the root as the means to expel the demon, but merely the approach of the ring with the root to the nostrils of the demoniac together with the spells (in any case the connection would be through the element of smelling, also found in Tob 6:18a).549 Introducing that statement, Josephus affirms that God himself enabled Solomon to 544 GI: καὶ ἔδησεν αὐτὸ ὁ ἄγγελος. GII uses verb συμποδίζω + a compound form of δῆσαι (ἐπιδέω): καὶ βαδίσας Ραφαὴλ συνεπόδισεν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ καὶ ἐπέδησεν παραχρῆμα. 545 See Dion, “Raphaël l’Exorciste”, 407–408. 546 See Dion, “Raphaël l’Exorciste”, 405–408; Moore, Tobit, 158; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 161. 547 See Dion, “Raphaël l’Exorciste”, 407. 548 See Ego, Buch Tobit, 972. 549 “(...) he put a ring, that had a root of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down immediately, he warned him to return into him no more, making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed” (Ant. 8,47).

192 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

learn skills to expel demons, through the use of certain roots and “incantations” that Solomon for that purpose, composed.550 Josephus’ texts are particularly interesting regarding our discussion for witnessing to the use in (late) ancient Judaism of materia (magica?) with spells as a means for warding off demons (as it appears in certain contrast with the Aramaic bowls, which refer mostly spells as a means for that purpose), of Solomonic provenance and originated under divine authority. At this point we may address question 2, about the function of the ritual to be performed expelling Asmodeus. The ritual introduced in 6:8 is amplified by Raphael in 6:17–18(a–d). There, the angel explicitly states that having placed the fish’s heart and liver upon the hot ashes, the ὀσμή (“scent”) that will come out from it (not simply the smoke), the demon will “smell and flee” (ὀσφρανθήσεται τὸ δαιμόνιον καὶ φεύξεται) to never never more “appear” around her (οὐκέτι μὴ φανῇ περὶ αὐτὴν). As noted at first by Alonso Schökel the reader could not but laugh at such burlesque and comic a description. Moreover, the mechanical act that Tobiah performs is in fact a minute execution of Azariah-Raphael’s instructions. In light of the whole narrative articulation at stake in Tob 6 highlighted already in our considerations of the fish incident and still to be emphasized by the narrator in the section that follows, the inner dimension of hearing-executing, i.e., that of obeying, is but an essential interpretive component of the rhetoric at stake regarding the banishment of the demon. According to a diffused view in STP literature, were not demons finally the product of the Watcher’s disobedience of the boundaries established by the Creator? In that light, the scent that Asmodeus smells and that “unbinds” him from Sarah’s surroundings, deep down, is obedience, the adjacent motivation of the fish’s conquering, and the ingathering and burning of its heart and liver. The fact that prayer for mercy and salvation to the LORD of heaven is

550 “God also enabled him to learn that skill (τέχνην) which expels demons (δαιμόνων), useful and wholesome to men. He composed such incantations (ἐπῳδάς) also by which distempers are alleviated. And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away (ἐνδούμενοι) demons, so that they never return.” See Ant. 8,45. Noteworthy, the term used for “driving away” demons is a participle from verb ἐνδέω, of the same root of δῆσαι, meaning precisely, “to bind.” On Josephus’ idea of God revealing spells, see the interesting article of R. Deines, “Josephus, Solomo und die von Gott verliehene τέχνη gegen die Dämonen”, Die Dämonen : die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt = Demons : The Demonology of Israelite- Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment (Hrsg. A. Lange – H. Lichtenberger – K.F. D. Römheld) (Tübingen 2033) 365–394; On the various exorcism practices active during STP, see Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic. A History, 8–69.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 193

also part of the ritual, as recognized by most commentators, strengthens that idea.551 Although not aware of that,552 Tobiah is finally fulfilling the commands of the divine envoy and thus of the LORD himself. In brief, several elements seem to converge building meaning in Tobit’s fishy ritual for the expelling of the demon. Its language and feature certainly serve to evoke by imitation diffused magic practices of the author’s time, as various sources of the period and later seem to support. However, considering that a sacrificial language as noted before, is soberly detectable in Tobiah’s interaction with the fish and the ritual to be performed regarding its heart and liver (Tobit’s author is certainly familiar with Jerusalem’s Temple sacrificial legislation in some form as Tob 1:4–5 testify),553 the ritual of Tob 6/8 is “detoxed” so to speak from its magical outlook. Raphael’s invitation to prayer linked to the ritual to be performed by Tobiah intensifies such process. As Poulssen righlty noted, Tobit’s apparent compliance with magic through its smoky ritual is so just in appearance. Its “pure” theological view that it is God who heals, is not obscured by the magic colorfulness of its ritual. The Healer God may also act through “second causes.”554 Also serve that process the ironical, burlesque and humorous feature of the account. Through it, Tobit’s author in effect, performs a refined critique of “magic” practices followed most certainly by some of his contemporaries and is able to affirm important teachings of their traditional belief.

551 In that regard we do not agree with Ego’s interpretation following Bohak and others, that Raphael’s invitation to prayer in Tob 6 and its enactment in Tob 8 is to be considered disconnected from the “mechanical” ritual performed by Tobiah regarding the fish’s heart and liver. See B. Ego, “Die Vertreibung des Dämons Admodäeus. “Magie” in der Tobiterzählung”, Zauber und Magie im antiken Palästina und in seiner Umwelt. Kolloquium des Deutschen Vereins zur Erforschung Palästinas, 14.–16.11.2014, Mainz (Hrsg. J. Kamlah-Idan – R. Schafer – M. Witte) (ADPV 46; 2017) 381–408, 402. 552 Since for Tobiah within the world of the narration, Raphael is merely Azariah, a fellow Israelite, more is to be said in that regard. The argument is retaken and discussed ulteriorly further. For a summary of the argument, see Commentary on p. 256. 553 Levine also detected such connection and in that regard offered this interesting insight: “The sacrificial elements formerly used in the Temple  – incense smoke and animal parts  – banish supernatural forces rather than summon or thank them. Just as improper respect for the Temple caused the exile of Naphtali, so manipulation of the sacrificial elements will allow the tribe to increase.” See Levine, “Tobit”, 51. 554 “Overigens mag dit soort beschouwingen de hoofdgedachte niet verduisteren: het is God, die heil, genezing brengt (Rafael). (...) Nog meer dan een globale verwijzing naar een tekst als Dt 18,9–14 belet deze zuivere theologie principieel een louter magische interpretatie van deze vss, die genuanceerder dan 3,17 en 5,4 Gods regiment over de “tweede oorzaken” suggereren.” N. Poulssen, Tobit (De Boeken van het Oude Testament 6/2; Roermond 1968) 31.

194 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Commentary With Azariah’s explanation of the “medicinal” value of the fish’s heart and liver, the narrator calls the reader’s attention to the means through which Sarah’s liberation of the demon will be brought about. Such means revealed by God-sent angel, indirectly continues to stress the importance of the fish Tobiah caught by the Tigris. The fish incident continues to emerge less and less accidental and ever more intentional. The angel’s statement in 6:5b had already called the reader’s attention through the term “medicine” for the significance of the fish’s organs for the healing processes. The narrator now, through the angel’s mouth, sets wide open the “which, how and for whom” the gathered fish’s organs shall be operated for the happy solution of Tobit’s double complications. Interestingly, Azariah’s response, ironically following Tobiah’s question order, reveals the reader, how the fish’s heart and liver are going to be used for Sarah’s healing. The narrator’s dialogue with the reader and his double communicative level, helps to keep his interest in the story, whose suspense here as in chapter 3, is significantly diminished. To keep the reader’s interest, the narrator also surprises and intrigues the reader through angel’s direct address to Tobiah (through the imperative mode in GII), implicating him ever more with Sarah’s healing process (in effect also with Tobit’s) although the addition of the prepositional phrase “before a man or a woman” softens Azariah’s statement by generalizing it. The manner in which Sarah’s healing is going to be brought about, begins to delineate itself concretely here and with unexpected contours. The narrator calls the reader’s attention to the role the fumes from the burned fish organs will play in Sarah’s deliverance. As part of the narrator’s “dynamics of anticipations,” the question of “when,” such process is going to take place is left unanswered, although for only few verses more. Interestingly, in the next revelatory step, the angel will anticipate the reader with remarkable richness of details, the steps Tobiah will follow in operating the fish’s heart and liver. From various ideas connected with the “liver” and “heart” (as physical organ), specially with the “liver,” mentioned in before, those regarding the theme of “life” and “fertility” appears to us the most interesting and significant at level of the chapter’s narrative rhetoric. The angel’s next revelatory statements to Tobiah in 6:17–18 will underscore it. In that regard, Jensen’s idea of the heart and liver burning’s connection with Tobit’s motif of death and burial, and by contrast, to that of life and fertility, are worthy highlighting. The fact that Tobiah surprisingly get ever more involved as protagonist in Sarah’s healing process instead of Raphael, also supports such view. Such communicative dynamics in our view, is by no means, annulated by the potential humorous and ironical twist that the heart & liver motif could create in the story (perhaps not perceived by

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 195

all potential readers /listeners). Tobit story seems clearly intended both to entertain and instruct, perhaps becoming even more instructive, insofar it entertains. Tobit’s motif of fish heart and liver burning to drive away the demon appears to be the author’s creation. The views regarding the liver, as source of blood and therefore, life, for humans and animals, together with some liver-related rituals and traditions of his surrounding cultural milieu; and the familiarity with ancient sacrificial legislation of his people, may have inspired such creation. The ingenious integration of the motif in his recounting, with its tint of irony and burlesque colorfulness, appears to serve among other things for amusement and the scope of a refined critic, both of beliefs and behaviors. The disproportionate relationship between means (natural media) and effect (drive away of an spiritual entity), seems to support such views. Through such critical examination of reality, typical of wisdom environments, our author is able to articulate a new synthesis.

3.3.5 The Medicinal Value of the Fish’s Gall (v.9)

Exegesis 3.3.5.1 Text Critical Note An important difference between GI and GII regarding v. 9, lies on the object of verb ἐγχρίω. Whereas in GII it is “a man’s eyes” (ἀνθρώπου ὀφθαλμούς), in GI it is “a man” (ἄνθρωπον) in whose eyes there appeared “white films.” The verse’s final verbal form (ὑγιαίνουσιν in GII /ἰαθήσεται in GI), underscores that difference.555 Moreover, besides the rubbing of the eyes with fish’s gall, in GII Azariah says also that it is necessary to “blow” (ἐμφυσῆσαι) upon the white films, to bring about the betterment of the eyes, reference also absent in GI. ̓ 3.3.5.2 Εγχρίω Verb ἐγχρίω, “to rub on, anoint, smear,”556 used both in GI and GII to describe the main action regarding the fish’s gall, has only one occurrence more in the LXX in Jer 4:30. In the NT it is used only once in Rev 3:18, also in relation to the “eyes.”557

555 Noteworthy, GI’s healing account in 11:7–13 (enactment of 6:9) presents a narrative description similar to that of GII. 556 See GELS, 189; LS, 476. 557 “Therefore I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may be rich; and white robes to clothe you and to keep the shame of your nakedness from being seen; and salve

196 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

4Q197 (4 i 14–15) witnesses to verb ‫ כחל‬as Aramaic Vorlage of Greek ἐγχρίω.558 Verb ‫ כחל‬appears to be derived from the noun ‫( כוחל‬qohel/qohol), which in Beyer’s description means, “Antimonpaste als Augenschminke” (“antymony-paste as eye’s make-up”)559 and in Jastrow’s, “kohl, a powder used for painting the eyelids, stibium.”560 Thus, verb ‫( כחל‬G) is described as “die Augen(lider) schminken/ bestreichen” by Beyer and in a similarly, “to paint the eyelids for medical or cosmetic purposes,” by Jastrow.561 With the sense of “painting the eye-lids for cosmetic purposes” is clearly the use of verb ‫ כחל‬in TarJon for Jer 4:30 (see also Tar for 2 Kgs 9:30). In light of that evidence, the exact narrative description the narrator has in mind emerges clearly: the fish’s gall is thought to be applied upon the eyelids, in the manner eye’s make-up is done. 3.3.5.3 Ἀναβαίνω Verb ἀναβαίνω has the primary meaning of to “ascend, go/come up, advance and reach a higher position” (thus indicating upwards movement) but also for instance “to set out on a military campaign.”562 In the LXX, it is also used in the sense of “to emerge, to make appearance,” a lion out of his lair as for instance in Jer 4:7; or of inner passions or thoughts as in Ezek 24:8; 38:10.18. As it appears, with the sense of emerging, appearing of a medical symptom (in the case of Tobit of white-films in the eyes), it is only used in Tob 6:9 GII. Also in that last sense, the basic idea of verb ἀναβαίνω seems preserved (upwards movement), in the case of v.9 in a transposed sense: the whitefilms “came out” upon Tobit’s eyes as result and manifestation of eyes’ severe damage, caused by birds’ warm feces. Considering the theological sense that Tobit’s blindness also has in the story, the dynamics conveyed through verb ἀναβαίνω (external effect of an inner cause) appears also significant in that direction. In fact, Tobit’s physical blindness is only an external expression of an inner “disease,” suffered perhaps by several exiled Israelites, which the author actually denounces and criticizes, with hope of healing.

to anoint your eyes so that you may see” (συμβουλεύω σοι ἀγοράσαι παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ χρυσίον πεπυρωμένον ἐκ πυρὸς ἵνα πλουτήσῃς, καὶ ἱμάτια λευκὰ ἵνα περιβάλῃ καὶ μὴ φανερωθῇ ἡ αἰσχύνη τῆς γυμνότητός σου, καὶ κολλ[ο]ύριον ἐγχρῖσαι τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς σου ἵνα βλέπῃς). 558 See WGS, 185; Beyer, ATTM II , 178–179. 559 See K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer : samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, Deutscharamäische Wortliste, Register. Band 1 (Göttingen 1994) 604. 560 See Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 618. 561 See Beyer, ATTM II , 416; Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 629. 562 See GELS, 35–36.

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 197

3.3.5.4 Λεύκωμα The term λεύκωμα and more precisely in its plural form, λευκώματα is only used in the LXX in Tobit, 7x in GII (Tob 2:10{2x}; 3:17; 6:9{2x}; 11:8). In classical Greek, with λεύκωμα it was popularly understood a wooden board used for writing, whose surface was whitened with gypsum (attested already in the sixth century B.C.). On such whitened board, “Athenians exhibited notices and Egyptians did their homework.”563 At some point, the term began to be used also to indicate, “a white spot in the eye, caused by a thickening of the cornea,” as LS describes it,564 becoming with the pass of time, a technical term to refer an specific eye problem. Eustathius of Thessalonica, byzantine bishop and commentator of Homer (1115–1195 CE), in his commentary to the Iliad, register it as equivalent to what Aristotle, in his History of the Animals qualified as “having white film over the eye.”565 Blindness caused by a “leukoma” in the eyes, is actually recorded in late antiquity, with the name of “ἐπάργεμα.”566 4Q197 [4(b) i 12–15] witnesses to the term ‫( חרריא‬noun feminine plural emphatic)567 as Aramaic equivalent to Greek λευκώματα, which Beyer describes as “Geschwür”, i.e., “abcess, boil, ulcer.” Both Brockelmann and Payne-Smith register the word ‫ܚܘܪܘܪܐ‬, “albugo”; “white spots in the eye or a web of white obscuring the sight”, respectively.568 Both in Greek and in Aramaic the element “white” is implied in the concept (Greek λευκόν; Syriac ‫)ܚܘܪ‬.569 ̓ 3.3.5.5 Εμφυσάω In referring the usefulness of the fish’s gall for healing the eyes, Raphael includes the action of “blowing” (ἐμφυσάω) to that of “smearing” (ἐγχρίω). In

563 See E. Turner, Greek Papyri. An Introduction (Oxford 1968) 6; LS, 1042. John of Damascus or Damascene (ca. 675/676  – 749 C.E.), still knows such meaning in the eighth century, using it to refer to Pilate’s inscription placed at the head of Jesus’ cross (see Jn 19:19). See Johannes Damascenus, Frag. in Matthaeum, 23 (PG 96, 1412). 564 See LS, 1042. 565 “The phene has a film over its eyes (ἐπάργεμός) and sees badly” (‘Ἡ δὲ φήνη ἐπάργεμός τ’ ἐστὶ καὶ πεπήρωται τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς·). See Aristotle, Hist.Anim., 620a1; LS, 610. 566  ἢ νόσος ὀφθαλμῶν. Ἐπάργεμα γὰρ λέγεται τὰ ὄμματα, ὅταν ᾖ τετυφλωμένα ὑπὸ λευκωμά-των· See M. Schmidt, ed. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon (Jenae 1867) 571. Hesychius Lexicographus or Hesychius of Alexandria is a 5th–6th century AD ancient Greek grammarian, who compiled a rich lexicon of unusual or obscure Greek words. 567 See Beyer, ATTM II , 402. 568 See C. Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum (Edinburgh  – Berlin 1895) 107; J. P. S. Margoliuth, R. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary : Founded Upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith (Oxford 1903) 134. 569 See LS, 1042; Margoliuth, – Payne Smith, Syriac Dictionary, 134.

198 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

the few passages where LXX uses ἐμφυσάω,570 mostly Hebrew ‫“( נפח‬to blow, to breathe”) is found as its Semitic adjacent.571 Moreover, verb ἐμφυσάω in the LXX has mostly God as subject. Emblematic in that regard is God’s blowing in Adam’s nostrils giving him the “breath of life” (see Gen 2:7). Furthermore, whereas for the use of ἐμφυσάω in Tob 6:9 no Semitic evidence is left, 4Q200 5:1–4 witnesses to Hebrew572 ‫ נפוץ‬in 11:11, meaning primarily “to smash to pieces” but also “to scatter, to disperse.”573 Most occurrences of ‫ נפץ‬in MT have the later meaning.574 Noteworthy, the action of “blowing” is not mentioned in the angel’s restatement to Tobiah of the instruction of 6:9 in 11:8 (both in GI575 and GII). Instead, Raphael speaks of the astringent effect of the “medicine,” which would “contract” (ἀποστύψει)576 the whitefilms and “peel them off” (ἀπολεπίσει577). Peculiarly in 11:11 which recounts the enactment of the angel’s instructions regarding the gall, verb ἐμφυσάω occurs again. There however contrary to what is instructed in 6:9 (to “blow upon the white films”), Tobiah first blows on his father’s eyes, then applies the gall, to finally peel off the whitefilms with his hands (see 11:11–13). Greek translator may have had in mind Gen 2:7 while translating Tobit, thus confusing the narrative description. OL transmits a disjunction in 6:9: the gall may be used to heal eye problems either “anointing” (ad unguendos oculos homini cui fuerint albugines) or “blowing” (uel ad flandum in ipsis oculorum maculis).578 Strange as it may appear, the action of “blowing” an astringent element in the eyes as part of treatment of λευκώματα, was known in late antiquity.579 Furthermore, in GII the sentence “upon the white films” (ἐπὶ τῶν λευκωμάτων) seems epexegetical regarding prepositional phrase ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς; in light of OL, it appears to be a gloss. Considering that without it, the 570 Seven extra its two occurrences in Tobit. See Gen 2:7; 1 Kgs 17:21; Job 4:21; Wis 15:11; Nah 2:2; Ezek 21:36; 37:9. The verb has only one occurrence in the NT, in Jn 20:22. 571 An ‫ ע"ו‬form (‫ )פוח‬is also attested in MT with that same meaning. See L. Koehler,  – W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden – Boston – Köln 2001) 916-917. 572 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 168.278. 573 See HALOT I, 711; HATIS 280. 574 Verb ‫ נפץ‬is also attested in Aramaic with that same meanings. See Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 922.925.1140.1145. 575 GI omits the “blowing” sentence already in 6:9. 576 Hapax of the LXX. See LS, 220. Muraoka describes it “to draw together.” See GELS, 85. 577 See LS, 206; GELS, 78. 578 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 209. 579 See (Pseudo)-Galenus, De remediis parabilibus, Liber III, 10 (translation is ours): “If whitefilms appear in the eyes of a small child, the mother once chewed ammoniac, shall blow in the child’s eyes” (ἐὰν δὲ παιδίῳ σμικρῷ λεύκωμα γένηται, εἰς τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ παιδίου ἀμμωνιακὸν μασησαμένη, ἐμφυσάτω εἰς τὸν τοῦ παιδίου ὀφθαλμόν·

3.3 Tobiah Questions Raphael about the Fish’s Organs (Tob 6:6d–9)  

 199

antecedent of the prepositional phrase would be clearly ὀφθαλμούς, perhaps that gloss is the result of the Greek translator’s work finding strange the idea of blowing gall upon the eyes. 3.3.5.6 Verb ὑγιαίνω in Tobit Verb ὑγιαίνω with which Azariah concludes his answer to Tobiah occurs twenty-five times in GII (see Tob 5:14.16(2x).17.21(3x).22; 6:9; 7:1.4.5.12; 8:21; 10:6.11(3x).13; 11:17(2x); 12:3.5), with few other occurrences in the LXX.580 In Tobit, ὑγιαίνω conveys mostly the stative idea of “being sound, well, in good health,” but is also used as a greeting expressing good wish. In most occurrences in the LXX, ὑγιαίνω is Greek equivalent of rich Hebrew/Aramaic ‫שלם‬, used with its meaning of “being complete, wholesome, healthy.”581 4Q197 (4 i 14–15) transmits Aramaic form ‫ויחין‬, literally, “and they will live,” clearly there in the sense of ”getting well, healthy.”582 However clear in its sense in Tob 6:9, in light of the above mentioned considerations, verb ὑγιαίνω appears to play in our sequence a key part for its rhetorical effect (explanation in our commentary below). Historical Note: Fish-Gall for Healing Eye Problems As noted by most commentators, the use of fish-gall for treating eye problems is known from old.583 Dioscorides Pedanius (first century Roman physician of Greek origin) mentions the gall of “sea scorpion” (cottus scorpius, a sea fish)584 as a materia medica for healing among other things, λευκώματα from the eyes.585 Pliny refers to “tortoises’ gall” for such purposes in his Historia naturalis.586 Acquainted with such information at his time, Tobit’s author could have found inspiration in it to articulate that motif in his story. Such evidence continues to highlight the latent high education level of Tobit’s author and his openness to 580 See Gen 29:6(2x); 37:14; 43:27 and 28; Exod 4:18; 1 Sam. 25:6; 2 Sam. 14:8; 20:9; 2 Macc 1:10; 9:19; 11:28.38; Prov 13:13; Dan 10:19. 581 See HALOT II, 1532–1536; HATIS 120. See also B. Kasole Ka-Mungu, Des ténèbres à la lumière. La guérison dans le livre de Tobit (EHS.T XXIII/862; Frankfurt-am-Main 2008) 317–319. 582 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 209; Beyer, ATTM II , 178–179.395. 583 See Moore, Tobit, 201–202; Kasole Ka-Mungu, Des ténèbres à la lumière, 275–277; Kollmann, “Göttliche Offenbarung”, 293–297; See also on regard R. D. Sudarsky, “Tobit and Chelanting Agents”, American Journal of Ophtalmology 6 (1964) 963–967. 584 See R. Cresswell, Aristotle’s History of Animals. In Ten Books (London 1902) 322. 585 τοῦ δὲ ἡ χολὴ ἁρμόζει πρὸς τὰς ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ὑποχύσεις καὶ λευκώματα καὶ ἀμβλυωπίας. See De materia medica, Liber 2, 12, 1, 2. 586 Repeatedly stated by most commentators. See for instance Fitzmyer, Tobit, 209.

200 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

the ideas of his surrounding cultural milieu. Tobit’s healing process, once more appears to take distance from the idea of magic, idea that also its enactment in Tob 11 seems to support. In that, Tobit’s articulation of the fish-gall motif, supports our supposition stated previously in this section, that the idea of natural medicine revealed by a God sent angel, may contribute for the development of a positive view of physicians and medicaments in Jewish thought, as witnessed by later Ben Sirach.

Commentary Briefer than the previous, Azariah’s explanation regarding the fish’s gall appears also significant at various levels in the narrative. Whereas regarding the fish’s heart and liver, the mention of “man or woman” turned vaguer the information in their regard, Azariah’s annotations regarding the gall, spotting only “a man in whose eyes appeared white films,” immediately connects it to Tobit’s plight. The repetition of the terms “eyes” and “white-films” connects Tob 6 to Tob 2 and 11 by means of inclusions. Tobit had the bad luck of having sparrow’s warm feces (a byproduct of eating) falling right into both of his eyes (what aim had the innocent birds!). It does not seem casual the fact that the narrator now has as angel in human disguise angel instructing to use liver’s gall (known from old to have a connection with food processing and thus with the making of the feces), to heal the bird’s droppings damage. Perhaps inspired by the medical use of fish gall for healing eyes’ disease at his time, Tobit’s narrator skillfully transforms such knowledge into a motif for his story, articulating it in such manner, once more, as to amuse and instruct. Tobit’s “folkloristic mire of bird droppings, fish galls and fettered demons in Egypt” to use Jensen’s expression,587 does not seem to threaten the story’s theological and instructive richness. The “blowing” idea in Tob 6:9, although we keep it as such in our reading of Tobit, does not inspire us to draw much conclusions, due to the textual insecurity found regarding it presented before. In any case, such action will also serve at level of the narrative rhetoric, to stress Tobiah’s faithful fulfillment of the angel’s instruction also regarding the fish’s gall, even if in Tob 11, for reasons still to be understood, Azariah “needs” to restate it to (there-matured) Tobiah. Directly related to that, appears to be the narrator’s in our view intentional

587 See Jensen, “Family, Fertility and Foul Smell”, 131.

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) 

 201

laconic conclusion of the sequence of Tob 6:6d–9. Not stressed enough perhaps, such laconic end in our view, plays an important role in the chapter’s communicative dynamics and rhetorical articulation. In effect, having explained Tobiah the usefulness particularly of the fish’s gall, considering Tobiah’s attachment to his father, the reader would expect some sort of reaction on his part. The text’s silence, immediate raises in the reader’s mind, several questions regarding Tobiah’s view of his companion’s annotations. Perhaps the acquaintance of his potential implication in the healing of his father and of “a man or a woman” haunted by an evil spirit, due to the manner Azariah responds him. Or perhaps aware of his father’s failed intents with previous φάρμακα led him to skepticism regarding his travel guide words (to be remembered that for Tobiah, he is merely Azariah, a fellow Israelite). Or perhaps the narrator simply wants the reader to see Tobiah’s inner (instructive) attitude of reflection before what is told to him. Although the reason for Tobiah’s silence is not easy to assert for sure, one thing is certain: his silence leaves the attentive reader a matter to reflect on.

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) Introductory Note The final and lengthier section of the travel account, regards the important argument of Tobiah’s marriage with Raguel’s daughter. Azariah appears to play the “cupid” and through a well articulated argumentation, leads Tobiah to freely accept marrying Sarah. “The conversation is carefully constructed and held together by key words.”588 Moreover, as Vílchez Líndez suggested, in this section the author is able to join in one scene all important components of the next scenes, to keep the reader’s interest in the story, even when he knows beforehand the story’s happy end.589

588 See Nickelsburg, “Tobit”, 15. 589 “El autor consigue reunir en este cuadro (Tob 6:10–18, AN ) todos los elementos necesarios para que la acción que ha de seguir se mantenga tensa y los lectores la sigan con el máximo interés, aunque de antemano se nos anuncie que el final va a ser feliz.” See Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 130.

202 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Exegesis 3.4.1 Structure The final and lengthiest section of the travel story, is composed of four units. Table 3.10 below recalls it in a structured manner: Table 3.10: Structure and labeling of Tob 6:10–18. SECTION

CONTENT

(IV) (V) (VI) (VII)

RAPHAEL PROPOSES TO TOBIAH A MARRIAGE TO SARAH (TOB 6:10–13) TOBIAH KNEW ABOUT THE DEMON! (TOB 6:14–15) “DON’T YOU REMEMBER YOUR FATHER’S COMMAND?” (TOB 6:16–18i) “AND HIS HEART CLUNG TO HER...” (TOB 6:18jkl)

Having entered Median territory, already approaching Ecbatana, Azariah takes the floor and speaks to Tobiah. The new change of place marks the beginning of the following narrative section reinforced by the completely new subject. Marriage with Sarah, in fact, completely unmentioned until that point, dominates the whole of the section. The angel addresses Tobiah in friendly terms but also with supernatural authority. Through well thought out steps Raphael begins to appeal to Tobiah’s most sensitive “fibers.” This first part of the angel’s discourse is articulated with covenantal language. A climax of it is found in its reference to a “precept” from the “Book of Moses.” The whole section is loaded with irony.

3.4.2 Parallelisms Between Tobiah and Sarah As most commentators noticed, the narrator’s presentation of Tobit and Sarah’s distress in Tob 2–3 is paralleled through the narrative of their prayers. Several points of contact in fact are detectable in what precedes it (false accusation; reproach) and in the content of their praying. Such link is ratified by the narrator’s report of the prayers of both being heard in God’s glory (3:16), the sending of angel Raphael by divine decree for their healing as result of it and the section’s conclusive remark (last line of 3:17).590 In the angel’s discourse, we may notice that through several elements the narrator creates parallels also between Tobiah and Sarah. Both are

590 ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἐπέστρεψεν Τωβιθ ἀπὸ τῆς αὐλῆς εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ καὶ Σαρρα ἡ τοῦ Ραγουηλ καὶ αὐτὴ κατέβη ἐκ τοῦ ὑπερῴου.

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) 

 203

exile Israelites, beloved sole children of their parents; both are obedient to their fathers (especially regarding endogamy) and attached to them; both are concerned with their parent’s grief; both Tobiah and Sarah are “involved” with the theme of death and dead bodies, as their fathers; both embody eschatological hope for the future of the people (recall Tob 2:3; 3:8; 4:3–4; 6:14–15; 14:7). The parallelisms of their stories, modeled on the stories of Isaac and Jacob,591 serve to emphasize the significance of their marriage as the means for Sarah’s healing (which in effect signified not merely deliverance from the demon); but also the sense of the divine orchestrated plan behind their union, affirmed by the narrator in 3:17 and underscored by the angel’s persuasive work for its realization. It also serves to highlight Tobiah’s leading role with respect to Sarah’s healing through their marriage. Finally, through such connection, the narrator may be suggesting that also regarding Tobiah a process of healing is needed. Such process is brought about through Raphael’s guidance and his coming together with Sarah, thanks to his intervention.

3.4.3 Raphael Takes the Floor and Addresses Tobiah (vv.10–11a)

Exegesis 3.4.3.1 Text Critical Note on V. 10 After the laconic end of the previous segment, besides accentuating it even more, the narrator’s intervention in v.10 marks the beginning of a new sequence, through a new reference of place and (implicitly) also of time. In GII, such reference is construed with two sentences. The first informs the reader of the company’s arrival to Median territory; the other, that they are about to reach Ecbatana. OL supports GII reading (et postquam intrauerunt in regionem Medorum adpropinquauerunt ciuitati Ecbathanis). GI however transmits strangely the mention of Rages (ὡς δὲ προσήγγισαν τῇ ᾽Ράγῃ) which according to Fitzmyer, “reflects the same error that one finds in the Vg of v.6 above.”592 That the correct reading is Ecbatana, confirms the angel’s statement that follows. Instead of the reference of place found in the other versions, the Vulgate puts in Tobiah’s lips a question about the lodging place (et dixit ei ubi uis ut maneamus).593 4Q197 (4 i 15) reads, “and wh[e]n they entered into Media and he was already ap[proaching Ecbatana]

591 See Nowell, “An Ancestral Story”, 11. 592 The Vg in v.6 transmits mistakingly Rages. See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 210. 593 See WGS, 186

204 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

(‫)]וכ]ד[י עלו לגו מדי וכבר הוא מ]דבק לאחמתא‬.594 The reconstruction of the name “Ecbatana” in the gap seems to be the right option for the coherence of the phrase, considering the narrative development, with Raphael’s mention of Raguel’s house in v.11b. 3.4.3.2 Structure of V.11a Having informed the change of place, the narrator then articulates the angel’s new interpellation to Tobiah in v.11a in a solemn manner.595 The use of verb λέγω in the historical present596 in the Greek text, represents a striking shift in the narrative sequence in the past, thus calling the reader’s attention to the significance of what is to follow. Such call to the reader is intensified by the change of vocative regarding “the angel,” thus referred until this moment and now mentioned by his real name, Raphael. Thackeray states that ”the historic present is “dramatic,” introducing new scenes.”597 In GII, such use of λέγω in 6:11a forms an inclusion with its repetition in 6:16, which introduces the final and lengthiest (in fact, the decisive) of Raphael’s interventions in the travel story. The apex of that solemn introduction constitutes the narrator’s use of a typical OT formulation, which in most cases in biblical tradition, introduces either divine interventions or a climax in important accounts (not surprising, twice in Gen 22:7.11).598 In such formulation, the addressee is called by name or an appositive and has its response in the form of a nominal sentence introduced by the “presentative interjection,” ἰδοὺ.599 Such articulation serves among other things to manifest the openness and availability of the addressee to what is about to be communicated to him, but also to anticipate and intensify the new complication that is about to emerge at plot level. Greek ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ of GII (absent in GI), is supported by the Aramaic ‫ הא אנה‬transmitted by 4Q197 (4 [b] i 15–17).600 Interestingly, such formulaic construction is found previously in Tobit (in 2:3), introducing an important dialogue between Tobiah and his father. As regarding the specific use of verb λέγω, such construction forms another inclusion in GII, which appears to serve the narrator to construe meaning at level of the narrative rhetoric. The corollary of such narrative articulation is that the narrator’s characterization of Tobiah’s typical attitude before his father (recall 5:1) for a purpose that will soon become evident, is thus mirrored in Tobiah’s atitude before his travel companion Azariah. 594 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 210. 595 λέγει Ῥαφαὴλ τῷ παιδαρίῳ Τωβία ἄδελφε. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἰδοὺ ἐγώ. 596 See SSG, 255–257. 597 See SSD, 255, note 1. 598 Also for instance in Gen 27:1.18; Exod 3:4; 1 Sam 3:4; Isa 6:8. 599 See SSG, 811. 600 Equivalent of Hebrew ‫הנני‬. See WGS, 187; GQA, 95.147; GBH, §105d.

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) 

 205

Commentary The narrator’s initial statement of v.10, in effect, marks not only a change of place, initiating a new section, but, considered more closely, appears to serve several purposes. Concise as it may appear (at narrating time level), such annotation in fact conveys another lengthy narrated time in the travel narrative, serving to advance the plot and to create narrative depth. In effect, by stating that the company had now entered Median territory, the narrator affirms that another travel distance had been covered with its implied time; by completing that idea with the “already” being at Ecbatana’s doors, the narrator implicitly states that such implied time was in fact a lengthy one. Raphael’s intervention needed to take place at some point of the travel before arriving to Ecbatana (for reasons that become transparent thereafter). In that regard, the use of adverb ἤδη, “already, by this time, only then (then and not before),”601 appears to play a key part for the sense of the sentence. The “chronicler” recalls that the angel spoke not only “when they had entered Media territory” but “as they were already approaching Ecbatana,” which will become in effect the final destination of Tobiah’s travel instead of Rages. The reference to “this night” in v.11b serves as intensifier of that focalization. Furthermore, the reference to “Media” reminds the reader of Tobiah’s task of retrieving the money, whereas the annotation regarding its capital, “Ecbatana,” highlights proleptically the importance of that city in what is about to follow at the same time that it evokes Sarah’s plight. The narrator’s spotting of Azariah by his real name Raphael now, considering the meaning of that name, seems to serve evoking and stressing the reason for his presence in the story and therefore his mission. The angel in fact does not accompany Tobiah merely for the sake of guiding and protecting him in his travel, but pursues the fulfillment of a divine established plan: to bring about the healing of both Tobit and Sarah (recall 3:17), of which Tobiah, from the travel onwards, surprisingly becomes the agent. Tobiah however, continues to be seen by the narrator as “the lad.” As in directing Azariah his question about the fish’s organs, Tobiah addressed his travel companion as “brother,” now it is the angel who directs himself to Tobiah in such manner. According to Schüngel-Straumann, “Dreimal spricht er Tobias als »Bruder« an, was darauf hinweisen könnte, daßer nunmehr mit ihm auf gleicher Ebene, von Mann zu Mann, spricht.”602 In our view, the use of such vocative in the conversation serves above all to insist in the atmosphere of familiarity and confidence that

601 See LS, 764 602 See Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 120.

206 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

was consolidated between the two travelers, who by now are to be seen more than merely travel companions. The inclusion that 6:11a forms with 2:3 serves to highlight that the atmosphere of compliance that existed between Tobit and Tobiah, has been created also between Tobiah and Raphael. Such ambiance appears essential for the angel’s achievement of one of the goals for his coming, which becomes patent in the rest of the discourse. In answering positively to Raphael’s “appeal,” young Tobiah manifests his openness to what his hired travel companion is about to state.

“It Is Necessary that we Spend This Night at Raguel’s House” (vv.11b–12)

Exegesis 3.4.4.1 Structure The reader may appreciate better the narrative articulation that begins to happen in the angel’s intervention in this final section of the travel account, considering it in amore structured manner. Table 3.11 below displays the Greek text of Tob 6:11b–12, with its various inner hookups highlighted. The various statements are numbered and will be referred to as “items” in the following considerations: Table 3.11: Structure of Tob 6:11b–12 (GII). καὶ εἶπεν αʋ᾽τῷ [11b] Ἐν τοῖς Ραγοʋήλοʋ τὴν νʋ́κτα ταʋ́την δεῖ ἡμᾶς αʋ᾽λισθῆναι, 1. καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος σʋγγενής σοʋ́ ἐστιν, [11c] 2. καὶ ἔστιν αʋ᾽τῷ θʋγάτηρ, ᾗ ὄνομα Σάρρα [11d] 3. καὶ ʋἱὸς ἄρσην οʋ᾽δὲ θʋγάτηρ ʋ῾πάρχει αʋ᾽τῷ πλὴν Σάρρας μόνης, [12a] 4. καὶ σὺ ἔγγιστα αʋ᾽ τῆς εἶ πάντας ἀνθρώποʋς κληρονομῆσαι αʋ᾽ τήν,[12b] 5. καὶ τὰ ὄντα τῷ πατρὶ αʋ᾽ τῆς σοὶ δικαιοʋ˜ται κληρονομῆσαι [12c] 6. καὶ τὸ κοράσιον φρόνιμον καὶ ἀνδρεῖον καὶ καλὸν λίαν, [12d] 7. καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αʋ᾽ τῆς *ἀγαπᾷ αʋ᾽τήν*. [12e]

A mere overview at Raphael’s first speech to Tobiah, captures its well-crafted articulation at various levels. The sequence is composed by a main statement and seven sub-statements that explain and justify it, introduced by a conjunction καί. Each of the seven sub-sentences are hooked up with another through a key idea, which constitutes a sort of barycenter in each of them. Furthermore, sentence (4) appears to be the center of the καί sequence presenting the strongest argument in the series. Several of the concepts found in this first discourse, link it with the following two segments but also evoke previous ideas of the chapter and of

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) 

 207

the book. Specially noteworthy is the presence of the impersonal form δεῖ in the initial sentence of the sequence, which permeates all that follows with divine authority. 3.4.4.2 Δεῖ ἡμᾶς αὐλισθῆναι The verbal articulation with δεῖ + infinitive already in the Greek OT, expresses not only the character of necessity or compulsion in an event, or a religious and ethical obligation, but emphasizes the link of its object with the “divine will.” Its use in Tob 6 seems to have also such theological connotation. “Will of God” is defined by Grundmann as that which “claims man in every situation of life and gives goal and direction to life on the basis of its saving purpose.”603 Such theological aspect in the use of δεῖ is repeatedly found in the NT604 and subsequent Christian writings.605 Considering the divine origin of Tobiah’s interlocutor before the reader’s eyes, such theological sense turns Azariah’s statement particularly instructive. Perhaps having grasped such theological aspect, OG translator rendered the Semitic expression of 6:11b with such specific Greek a diction. The idea of “lodging or spending the night” (αὐλισθῆναι), on the one hand adds another link to Tobit’s night-motif chain with its implied rhetoric; on the other, it hooks the sentence of 6:11b with 6:2d. Staying overnight by the Tigris, was Tobiah’s occasion for meeting up with the fish and through it, gathering the means for the announced healings; staying overnight at Raguel’s house, will be the occasion for Tobiah’s facing Sarah’s demonic threat, winning over it and consummating marriage with Sarah. Therefore, also through Raphael’s proposal of “spending the night” at Ecbatana, the narrator anticipates and stresses the importance of the event that is going to take place “with those of Raguel.” According to Moore, “The phrase «this night» alerts the reader to Tobiah’s imminent showdown with Asmodeus.”606

603 See W. Grundmann, “δεῖ, δέον ἐστί,” TDNT, II, 21–25, 21.23 604 See Grundmann, “δεῖ,” 22. 605 Emblematic in that regard are Polycarp’s words after a “vision” in prayer, three days before arrested. Having seen his pillow blazing with fire, turning to those around him, Polycarp states: “It is necessary for me to be burned alive” (ναι, ὅτε ἰδὼν αὐτὸ καιόμενον προσευχόμενος εἶπεν ἐπιστραφεὶς τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ πιστοῖς προφητικῶς· Δεῖ με ζῶντα καῆναι.). Through such formulation, it is manifested the conviction that the upcoming event of martyrdom was according to the Divine will. See Martyrdom of S. Polycarp, 5, 2. 606 See Moore, Tobit, 206.

208 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

3.4.4.3 Inner “Hook Ups” in Tob 6:11b–12 Once the solemn statement of v.11b is stated, a first set of seven arguments is then adduced by Raphael to initiate his artful argumentation aiming Tobiah’s free decision to marry Sarah. In that regard, we may notice that the segment, first, is composed with terms that stress the two genders, masculine (through the terms ἄνθρωπος, υἱός, ἄρσην and πατήρ and related pronoun αὐτῷ) and feminine (through the terms θυγάτηρ, the proper name Σάρρα, κοράσιον and the pronoun αὐτῆς, repeated 4x in the final verses). Moreover, the ideas of fatherhood and sonship, and although the term “mother” is not mentioned, evokes the idea of family and therefore, also of marriage. Such key idea is further stressed through the reference to “inheritance” (addressed further below). Already in his first assertion (item 1 in table 3.13 above), by mitigating the attention to “Raguel” referring to him as “the man,” the angel draws Tobiah and the reader’s attention to the term συγγενής, “kindred, relative, kinsman.” The idea of “kinship,” cleverly inserted in the very beginning of Raphael’s first discourse, will play a key role in the elision of Tobiah’s decision. Such idea is emphasized in the central statement of the segment (item 4), skillfully restated implying both Tobiah and Sarah (σὺ ἔγγιστα αὐτῆς εἶ παρὰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους κληρονομῆσαι αὐτήν). The link is stressed through the repetition of the term “man.” We may also notice that the terms ἄνθρωπος /ἀνθρώπους and συγγενής /ἔγγιστα are disposed in chiastic form. In that disposition, the terms “daughter” and “Sarah” are emphasized. The reference to a “daughter” and even more explicitly to “Sarah” in the angel’s mouth, seems loaded with verbal and dramatic irony, for the fact that before the reader’s eyes, an angel of God begins to play, using a term perhaps familiar to the original readers, the “cupid”: behind the ideas of “daughter” and “Sarah,” the angel is in effect affirming that of “woman” and potentially that of “wife.” In such manner, the idea of marriage, explicitly stated a few lines later, is artfully introduced in the narrative panorama. A similar structural phenomenon is detected in the narrator’s grouping of items 5–7. The term πατήρ and the personal pronoun αὐτῆς repeated in items 5 and 7, constitute an ABA’ structure which highlights Raphael’s characterization of Sarah (item 6). The importance of such statement for the process that is going on through the angel’s intervention, dispenses justification. With respect to the same items, another link is detectable between items 5 and 3, around the ideas of “patrimony” (τὰ ὄντα) and “inheriting” (κληρονομῆσαι). The fact that Raguel does not have any other son or daughter except Sarah (actually an echo of Sarah’s very words of 3:15), implicitly signifies that she is the only heir of her father’s estate, which by the fact that Tobiah is “the closest to inherit her,” it would also be “destined” to him. The repetition of verb (κληρονομῆσαι) in items 4 and 5, tightens the two sentences even more neatly. Furthermore, its use in item 3 restates almost

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) 

 209

verbatim, Sarah’s words in her prayer of Tob 3, thus forming an inclusion with it.607 Both infinitives δικαιοῦται and κληρονομῆσαι, serve as Leitwörte to the next segment (in fact one single long verse, 6:13) of Raphael’s discourse, part of that set of ideas that constitute the rhetorical lexicon of the angel’s discourses. In brief, articulated in an almost syllogistic manner, Tob 6:11b–12, which constitute the angel’s first set of arguments to Tobiah regarding marriage with Sarah, is neatly tight through various semantic and structural hook ups. Such manner of composition, serves the narrator not only to stress to the reader the key ideas of the section that begins to unfold but also to initiate Raphael’s dynamics of appeal to Tobiah’s conscience and will, towards the maturation of his free decision to marry Sarah (primary task of the angel’s divine commission). 3.4.4.4 Kληρονομέω It appears rather peculiar the use of verb κληρονομέω in Tob 6.608 Its sense in 6:12 seems clear, specially in light of the angel’s explanation of it in v.18d. However, precisely because of that explanation and in light of the specific sense and usage of the semantic group related to κλῆρος in the OT, some annotations are worthy regarding it. The basic meaning subjacent to the term κλῆρος is that of “lot,” in two main senses: “lot which is drawn” and the “lot of land.”609 From that sense derives the noun κληρονομία, conveying the idea of “the portion which is to be or is, inherited, inheritance and then simply possession.”610 With such meaning, the term occurs in texts that deal with inheritance of the land by Israel, as a Godapportioned gift.611 According to Foerster, κληρονομῆσαι is used in Tob 6:12 as synonym of “marrying.” In our view however, such interpretation is too simplistic and not without problems. In fact, the transition from one sense to the other, is far from evident. The author’s use of the idea of “inheritance” regarding Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah seems to serve emphasizing two dimensions implied in his insistence on endogamy, one social and the other theological. Through

607 καὶ οὐχ ὑπάρχει αὐτῷ ἕτερον τέκνον ἵνα κληρονομήσῃ αὐτόν οὐδὲ ἀδελφὸς αὐτῷ ἐγγὺς οὔτε συγγενὴς αὐτῷ ὑπάρχει ἵνα συντηρήσω ἐμαυτὴν αὐτῷ γυναῖκα. See Tob 3:15 608 See W. Foerster, “κλῆρος,” TDNT, III, 758–785; statistics regarding the use of κλῆρος and related terms in the OT and their respective Semitic adjacents, is found on p. 759. J. Herrmann discusses the sense of the two dominant Hebrew terms adjacent to the word group κλῆρος in the LXX (‫ נחלה‬and ‫)נחל‬, on pp.769–776 of the same article. 609 See Foerster, κλῆρος, 758. 610 See Foerster, κλῆρος, 768. 611 In that respect, it is not surprising that the LXX book with more occurrences of verb κληρονομέω (22 times) is Deuteronomy, with reference to the land (see for instance Deut 4:26; 6:1; 7:1; 9:5; 10:9; 11:29; 18:2).

210 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

endogamous marriage the exile Israelite safeguards his patrimony within the family and clan, avoiding its alienation, indispensable for their subsistence (social dimension). Such idea is immediately underscored in v.12c (see also 14:13 that recalls 8:21). The idea of inheritance, then, supports also the angel’s (and therefore the author’s) statement of divine arranged marital unions (recall Tob 3:17) in various forms restated in the section.612 The idea of “inheritance” with respect to Sarah could also be part of the author’s theological-symbolic articulation of the story, as suggested by Bauckham.613 Raphael’s language of “taking/inheriting,” emerges also as part of Tobit’s intertextual dynamics, thus a chain more in the book’s links with the patriarchal traditions of Genesis, in which such language is repeatedly found. Of Lamech for instance, the narrator states that ἔλαβεν ἑαυτῷ δύο γυναῖκας (see Gen 4:2); the “sons of God” of Gen 6 ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας from the daughters of men (6:2); Abraham and Lot “took” (ἔλαβον) Sarah and Milcah as wife (11:29) and later Sarah “takes” Hagar and “gives her” to Abram to be his wife (16:3); the Pharaoh regrets with Abraham for having “taken” Sarai as his wife (Gen 12:19; recall also Gen 20); Abraham insists with his servant to “take wife for his son” only from women from his paternal house (recall 24:3–4.7.37–40). Moreover, the language of “taking” is used in Gen not only regarding women and marriage but also merely regarding “travel.” In Gen 11:31, Terah is said to have taken (ἔλαβεν; MT: ‫)ויקח‬, Abram, his grandson Lot, and his daughter-in-law Sarai and brought out of Ur of the Chaldeans; in 12:5, the expression of “taking” is used of Abram regarding Sarah, Lot, his possessions and household and in Gen 19:15, the angel urges Lot to take his wife and daughters and flee from the imminent turmoil. Laban and Bethuel’s statement regarding Rebekah in Gen 24:51 may appear even more shocking to modern ears.614 3.4.4.5 Raphael’s Characterization of Sarah In item 6 of his initial argumentation, Raphael ponders to Tobiah, Sarah’s main characteristics. The angel describes the girl (τὸ κοράσιον) as “intelligent” (φρόνιμον),615 “courageous” (ἀνδρεῖον)616 and “exceedingly beautiful” (καλὸν λίαν).617 As Gabriel Fierro stated, Raphael presents Sarah merely in her positive 612 See 6:13ae.18f. 613 See Bauckham, “Tobit as Parable”, 149–150. 614 “Here is Rebekah, right in front of you; take her and go λαβὼν ἀπότρεχε, that she may become the wife of your master’s son, as the LORD has said” (NAB translation). 615 See LS, 1956; GELS, 720; HATIS, 125. 616 See LS, 128; GELS, 48; HATIS, 10. 617 Miller devotes a lengthy section of his study on marriage to this topic. See G. D. Miller, Marriage in the Book of Tobit (DCLS 10; Berlin 2011) 34–90.

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) 

 211

features (it certainly could not be otherwise!), features that all men would desire in an ideal wife and therefore Sarah as a good candidate, as real “keeper.”618 The adjective we translated here as “intelligent” belongs to the biblical vocabulary of “wisdom” in Greek diction. As it is known, the biblical idea of “wisdom” takes distance of the abstract Greek idea of σοφία, particularly for its intrinsic operative dimension. Perhaps for that reason, Greek translators render Hebrew /Aramaic ‫ חכמה‬preferentially with Greek terms related to “practical reason” like φρόνησις, σύνεσις, αἴσθησις among others.619 Such feature of Sarah seems exemplified by the narrator in her act of discernment before the idea, fruit of despair, of hanging herself (see Tob 3:10). The fact that in such dramatic moment the girl exercises right judgement and will power, giving up from such evil purpose, illustrates nicely such characteristic. According to Prov 12:4, a “courageous” woman (γυνὴ ἀνδρεία) is the crown of her husband and to 31:10, of far more value than jewels (γυναῖκα ἀνδρείαν... τιμιωτέρα δέ ἐστιν λίθων πολυτελῶν).620 Such is Sarah’s second main characteristic, according to Raphael. According to the narrator of 4 Maccabees, “intelligence” and “courage” are two of the characteristics of the righteous seven martyrs of later Maccabean times (See 4 Macc 15:10).621 The fact that the girl faced seven previous disastrous marriage intents, presumably each time in a more dramatic manner, and even if not explicitly stated, aware of the devilish threat, may be interpreted also as a characterization of her courage. Perhaps behind Sarah’s very intention of suicide, even if by contrast and in a negative manner, is also underscored such feature. Last, Sarah is described by the angel as “exceedingly beautiful.” “Beauty,” rightly notes Moore, “was an assumed attribute of Israel’s famous matriarchs, including Sarah (Gen 12:11). Rebekah (Gen 26:16), Rachel (Gen 29:17), Esther (Esth  2:7), and Judith (Jdt 8:7).”622 It is worthy noticing that the most ancient

618 “Rafael presenta a Sara como un «buen partido» para Tobías y proporciona únicamente los rasgos positivos de su persona: de su misma tribu, rica, prudente, valerosa y bella (vv. 12–13). Que estos rasgos de Sara sean presentados precisamente en este orden no es fruto del azar, sino que responde a las características que buscaba un hombre –junto con su familia– en una futura esposa.” See G. Fierro, “Tobías”, Ester, Judit, Rut, Tobías. Apócrifos del Antiguo Testamento. (BBB 12; Estella (Navarra) 2009) 193–255, 232. 619 See HATIS, 201. 620 See also Sir 26:2; 28:15. 621 “For they were both just and temperate, and manly, and high-minded, and fond of their brethren, and so fond of their mother that even to death they obeyed her by observing the law.” (δίκαιοί τε γὰρ ἦσαν καὶ σώφρονες καὶ ἀνδρεῖοι καὶ μεγαλόψυχοι καὶ φιλάδελφοι καὶ φιλομήτορες οὕτως ὥστε καὶ μέχρι θανάτου τὰ νόμιμα φυλάσσοντας πείθεσθαι αὐτῇ). 622 See Moore, Tobit, 204.

212 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

witnesses of Tobit story include the adjective “beautiful” in the angel’s characterization of the girl, already in item 2, of Tob 6:11, although absent in GII and GI.623 Greek witnesses’ omission of it, could be explained in light of the ancient Jewish traditions regarding the fallen angels (see Gen 6:1–6; 1 Enoch 6–7): perhaps insistence in the idea of “beauty” could activate undesired suspicions regarding Raphael in relation the Enochic fallen Watchers, who lusted for beautiful women having been sent to guard over mankind. Although not much exalted in books like Proverbs or Psalms, the idea of “beauty” is however repeatedly upraised in the Song of Songs, the biblical writing that as it is known, sings to human love also in its erotic dimension. “Rare would be the young man, in ancient or modern times, who wouldn’t want a beautiful wife,” rightly complemented Moore in that regard.624 The reference to the physical beauty of Sarah seems to play an important psychological role in Raphael’s argumentation. It is not difficult to perceive, the wisdom-like feature of such characterization,625 in light of biblical tradition. Considering the Bible’s parsimony in the use of adjectives, each of those used by Raphael at this point acquire a particular significance. On the other hand, the triad intelligence-courage-beauty, typifies virtue at three levels: mind, will and body or in more philosophical terms, at epistemological, ethical or moral, and aesthetic levels, markedly Greek in outlook. According to Aristotle, in fact, “φρόνησις, ἀρετή and ἡδονή are called the supreme good from different standpoints.”626 Such characterization therefore, could potentially corroborate the supposition of the author’s acquaintance with ideas from his surrounding cultural milieu, regarding which he continues to manifest dialogical sympathy. 3.4.4.6 Text Critical Note on V.12e Tobit 6:12 presents three substantial textual problems in light of the oldest witnesses (OL and Q). First, after the statement regarding Tobiah’s right of inheriting Raguel’s patrimony (item 5) OL apparently supported by Q (according to editors’ reconstruction)627 adds the sentence “take her as wife” (accipe illam uxorem). 623 See 4Q197 (4 i 16–17): ‫ ;ברא שפירה‬OL: filiam speciosam; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 210. 624 See Moore, Tobit, 203. 625 Idea also highlighted by Alonso Schökel. See Alonso Schökel,  – Iglesias González, Tobías, 70. 626 “τὸ δ᾽ εὐδαιμονεῖν καὶ τὸ ζῆν μακαρίως καὶ καλῶς εἴη ἂν ἐν τρισὶ μάλιστα, τοῖς εἶναι δοκοῦσιν αἰρε- τωτάτοις. οἳ μὲν γὰρ τὴν φρόνησιν μέγιστον εἶναί φασιν ἀγαθόν, οἳ δὲ τὴν ἀρετήν, οἳ δὲ τὴν ἡδονήν. See Aristotle, Eth. Eud., I, 1, 1214a, 32; G. Bertram, “φρήν, ἄφρων, φροσύνη, φρονέω, φρόνημα, φρόνησις, φρόνιμος,” TDNT IX, 220–235, 223. 627 DJD: ‫( סבה [לך ל]אנת[א‬ATTM :‫)למסבה [ לך‬.

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) 

 213

Second, the last argument of the angel’s first discourse, “and her father is a good man” (καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῆς καλός), notably laconic and not convincingly coherent in the context, is witnessed only by GII. GIII, OL majority text and Q transmit the reading: “and her father loves her” (GIII: καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῆς ἀγαπᾷ αὐτήν; OL: et pater ipsius diligit illam; 4Q197 (4 ii 1): ‫ואבה רחם] לה‬.628 GI omits both ideas altogether. Last, OL alone completes the previous idea with the statement et quaecunque possedit illi tradet.629 Most commentators accept the reading of GII as such.630 The idea of Raguel’s love for Sarah is explicitly stated by the girl in Tob 3:10, in the context of her suicide intent. Sarah sees herself as a beloved daughter (θυγάτηρ ἀγαπητὴ) and as it emerges, the narrator has Raguel’s love for Sarah as the decisive argument for the abandonment of the girl’s evil intent. Noteworthy, to that idea, Sarah adds the statement that there is to him “no other child to be his heir” (αὶ οὐχ ὑπάρχει αὐτῷ ἕτερον τέκνον ἵνα κληρονομήσῃ αὐτόν). Therefore, also the concern for Raguel’s estate the narrator implies in that rhetorical articulation. In that light OL reading of Raguel’s tender love for Sarah connected with the theme of inheritance appears narratively coherent. OL complement, “and all that he possesses, he destines to her” however, besides lacking textual support, appears redundant since the idea is already implied in the statement of Sarah being the sole heir (item 3 in GII). In that light, such reading could be seen as a gloss on behalf of OL translator, interpreting the sense of the statement “and her father loves her.” It is certainly unquestionable the rhetorical importance of the idea regarding Sarah’s suitor’s right of inheritance of her father’s (large) patrimony (idea enacted in Tob 8:21, 10:10 and 14:13) and that such idea plays an important part in Raphael’s marriage appeal to Tobiah. From a rhetorical point of view, however, we notice that the angel’s speech moves in a crescendo in its appeal. The narrator’s artfulness in his rhetorical articulation is confirmed more and more as the speech section forwards. Therefore, anticipated incisiveness appears out of place. In that light, OL reading in v.12b, accipe illam uxorem, which is stated by the angel in v.16d in GII as a part of the climax of his persuasive argumentation, besides lacking textual support, appears out of place. The remaining question regards the final reading of v.12 (12e). Textual evidence (OL, Q and GIII) suggest that the oldest reading would have been “and her father loves her” and therefore to be preferred to that of GII, “and her father is 628 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 212. 629 See WGS, 188–189. 630 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 212; Ego, Buch Tobit, 963; Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 119; Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 128; Virgulin, Tobia, 93.

214 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

a good\honorable man.” GII’s use of adjective καλός could be explained in any case as resultant of dittography (considering its mention regarding Sarah). On the other hand, the idea of Raguel being a “good man,” could be seen as the lectio difficilior and keeping a certain coherence with picture that emerges from him at macro-level. However, it is Tobit that is directly characterized as καλός by Raguel in 7:7 (not without irony). Moreover, considered in its immediate context, GII statement appears rather out of place. Tobit’s phrase of Raguel’s love for Sarah, as Fitzmyer noted, seems to be a calque of Gen 44:20, which states in similar terms (LXX: ὁ δὲ πατὴρ αὐτὸν ἠγάπησεν; MT: ‫)ואביו אהבו‬, Jacob’s love for his youngest son, Benjamin.631 In that sense such diction could potentially be another link in the chain of intertextual links of Tobit with Genesis’ traditions. Furthermore, from a rhetorical point of view, we may notice that in the section, the narrator’s statements regarding Raguel are all presented in relational terms, around the idea of kinship (key element for the argument of endogamy), in such manner that only Sarah gets characterized directly. The integration of the reading, “and her father loves her” as a conclusion of Azariah’s first set of arguments, thus, appears more coherent with the argumentative development, serving to polarize Tobiah’s attention to the girl (who in fact, is the key argument of the whole speech section). For the reasons just mentioned, with Moore and Littman,632 we have preferred the reading “and her father loves her” for v.12e. Although in keeping with GII’s transmitted reading, we have interpreted the text with such textual integration.

Commentary As night was again befalling the travelers and Tobiah had been summoned in such a solemn manner, Azariah begins to articulate his peculiar speech. The necessity of lodging by Raguel at Ecbatana, is justified Tobiah for reasons that turn things particularly serious to his side. The argumentation appears delivered in such manner as to emphasize and not at random, appealing ideas to draw the lad’s attention and interest in a crescendo. The reference to Raguel as “man” and “father” on the one hand, both in relation to “only daughter Sarah,” turns the girl into some sort of barycenter of the angel’s initial speech. On the other hand, the ideas of kinship and lawfulness, in relation to that of fatherhood implied in them, appears intended to revive in Tobiah the remem-

631 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 212. 632 See Moore, Tobit, 196; Littman, Tobit, 112–113.

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) 

 215

brance of his father Tobit, his piety towards him and Tobit’s teachings from his testament of chapter 4, enjoined just before the travel (as the next sequences will confirm). The angel’s artful presentation of Sarah, would not but polarize the lad’s interest and discernment. Potential marriage with Sarah implies also inheritance of all of her father’s estate, given the fact that she, like him (Tobiah) is a father’s only child. In that regard, the statement of Raguel’s love for Sarah fits nicely as an intensifier of the argumentation process. Conjoined with the angel’s characterization of Sarah, such ideas create the understatement that an attractive and wealthy kinswoman “happens to be found” in the upcoming lodging place. Such a potential fiancé would certainly be appealing to any nubile young man. Furthermore, the angel’s articulation of the idea of “inheritance” in relation to Sarah, serves to build up the idea of endogamy, the decisive argument of the discourse section. Azariah’s first set of arguments therefore appears intended above all to arise Tobiah’s interest in Sarah, even before meeting her, but also the remembrance of his father and his teachings. Attracting the eyes of his imagination and stirring deep feelings, it also serves bringing to surface Tobiah’s innermost values and appealing to his will power. What is brought up to his consideration regards a decision for life, in circumstances where, away from his father, mother and home, the weight of responsibility falls upon him alone. An intense psychological appeal633 in the deep sense of the term (appeal to mind, will and emotions) begins to take place and in an ever intense manner thereon. Even if in a stylized manner and in a “compact” form so to speak (considering the shortness of the chapter), such dialogical moment of the travel story continues Tobiah’s maturation process that is taking place since the travel process began.

3.4.5 “It Is Your Right to Take Her as Spouse” (v.13) If the angel’s first appeal were not sufficient, having finished to state its last idea, Raphael immediately adds another series of arguments. The new discourse connects neatly to the previous, sharpening some of its ideas and turning even more explicit the section’s main issue, marriage with Sarah, which becomes even more incisive.

633 See in that regard H. Efthimiadis-Keith, “Structural and Psychological Coherence in the Book of Tobit”, Construction, Coherence and Connotations. Studies on the Septuagint, Apocryphal and Cognate Literature (ed. P. J. Jordaan – N. P. L. Allen) (DCLS 34; Berlin – New York (NY) 2016) 149–164.

216 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Exegesis 3.4.5.1 Structure The second part of the angel’s discourse constitute merely the lengthy verse 13 in the edited text. The angel’s supplementary argumentation, presents a formal composition similar to that of 6:11b–12. Hook words interconnect the segment, forming like in the previous, a ring-like structure in the Greek text, whose center (in this case) constitutes the main argument.634 Table 3.12 below displays verse 13 in a structured manner: Table 3.12: Structure Tob 6:13 (GII). [13a] καὶ εἶπεν * δεδικαίωταί σοι λαβεῖν αʋ᾽τήν* A. καὶ ἄκοʋσόν μοʋ, ἄδελφε, [13b] B. καὶ λαλήσω τῷ πατρὶ περὶ τοʋ˜ κορασίου τὴν νύκτα ταύτην, ἵνα λημψόμεθά σοι αʋ᾽ τὴν νʋ́μφην [13c] C. καὶ ὅταν ἐπιστρέψωμεν ἐκ Ῥάγων, ποιήσομεν τὸν γάμον αʋ᾽ τῆς. [13d] D. καὶ ἐπίσταμαι ὅτι οʋ᾽ μὴ δʋνηθῇ Ῥαγοʋὴλ κωλʋ˜σαι αʋ᾽τὴν ἀπὸ σοʋ˜ ἢ ἐγγʋᾶσθαι ἑτέρῳ, ὀφειλήσειν θάνατον κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν τῆς βίβλου Μωυσέως διὰ τὸ γινώσκειν ὅτι σοὶ κληρονομία καθήκει λαβεῖν τὴν θʋγατέρα αʋ᾽τοʋ˜ παρὰ πάντα ἄνθρωπον. [13e] A’. καὶ νʋ˜ν ἄκοʋσόν μοʋ, ἄδελφε, [13f] B’. καὶ λαλήσομεν περὶ τοʋ˜ κορασίου τὴν νύκτα ταύτην καὶ μνηστεʋσόμεθά σοι αʋ᾽ τήν [13g] C’. καὶ ὅταν ἐπιστρέψωμεν ἐκ Ῥάγων, λημψόμεθα αʋ᾽ τὴν καὶ ἀπάξομεν αʋ᾽ τὴν μεθ᾽ἡμῶν εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σοʋ. [13h]

3.4.5.2 Λαβεῖν /λημψόμεθα The idea of marriage is built in 6:13 with the typical OT diction of “taking wife” (‫ ;לקח לאשׁה‬λαβεῖν εἰς γυναῖκα).635 Verb λαμβάνω, used in the initial statement and items B, D and B’, functions in the sequence as a Leitwort. The section’s main statement reaffirms the idea of item 5 of the previous segment: being Tobiah a kinsman of Sarah, it is rightful for him to “take her” as wife. The “rightfulness” of Tobiah as Sarah’s suitor not only has to do with the idea of “kinship” and thus

634 A similar structure is also suggested by Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 131–132. 635 See for instance in Gen 12:19; 24:3.37.51; Deut 24:4; Jer 16:2.

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) 

 217

to the argument of endogamy, so important in Tobit, but is now articulated by the angel also in relation to the “book of Moses.” Such mention, as argued further, plays a key rhetorical role in the argumentation. There follows a double exhortation to “listening” (items A and A’), which emphasizes even more to Tobiah and the reader the importance of the issue at stake, using a typical OT literary expedient, found in Deuteronomy, particularly important in the prophets but cherished also in wisdom tradition.636 Through statements B, C, B’ and C’, with different dictions, Raphael explicitly and repeatedly, states Tobiah the idea of marriage with Sarah. Interestingly, between the ideas of “spouse” (νύμφη) and “marriage” (γάμος), the angel in a clever manner stresses Tobiah that in any case, marrying Sarah, would not disturb his “mission” of retrieving family money by Gabael. For such purpose, a concentric structure (ABA’) structure is noticeable in both vv.13c–d and 13g–h, enucleating such thought. 3.4.5.3 Λαλήσω /λαλήσομεν In statement B, Raphael affirms that he would speak (λαλήσω) with the girl’s father about the marriage; in B’, the angel restates the idea in the first person plural (λαλήσομεν, “we shall speak”). Remarkably, according to the account of Tob 7, it is Tobiah himself who deals his marriage with Sarah with Raguel (see Tob 7:9–10). Moreover, statements B and B’ insist the urgency of the “engagement” (μνηστευσόμεθά σοι αὐτήν) in that very night, restating an idea of v.11b, which serves to hook v.13 with the previous segment. The same function appears to have the repetition of the terms brother, father, daughter, night, Rages, Raguel, daughter and man as well as verbs to approach and to inherit. Such “technique of repetition,” found also in other sections of the book, serves the narrator to connect more neatly main ideas of chapter 6 by means of inclusions and to create literary clusters to highlight them. The idea of “engagement” in statement C’, followed by the idea of “Rages,” plays as in item C, a psychological role in the angel’s argumentation, as argued in the previous paragraph. Likewise the angel’s final statement in it: home return (εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου) flashed out to Tobiah in the midst of such intense a conversation, appears to serve reviving in the lad a new remembrance of his father and mother, explicitly evoked in v.15. Such remembrance, especially of his father, appears of primary importance for the rhetorical strength of the angel’s decisive argument regarding Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah (Tob 6:16).

636 See for instance Deut 4:1.10; 6:3–4; 9:1; 12:28; 20:3; 27:9; 32:1; Isa 1:2; 7:13; 28:23; 44:1; Jer 7:2; 10:1; 21:11; 31:10; Ez 16:35; 34:7; 36:1; Ps 34:12; 48:2; 49:7; 66:16; 81:9; Prov 1:8; 4:1.10; 5:7; 7:24; 19:20; Interestingly, the call to “listening” in Tobit, only occurs in Raphael’s mouth and in Tob 6.

218 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

3.4.5.4 Δεδικαίωταί In Azariah’s introductory statement in v.13, the idea of “rightfulness” previously uttered regarding Raguel’s estate (item 5, in verse 12), now regards Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah. To “take” Sarah as wife belongs to Tobiah at level of “righteousness and justice.” Verb δικαιόω is only used once more in the book, in Tobit’s mouth, while agreeing in the fairness of giving Azariah half of all that he helped Tobiah to bring home (see Tob 12:4). “Righteousness” is the first characteristic of Tobit’s life, according to his very words (see Tob 1:3) and “righteous” is Tobit’s first attribute in the eyes of Raguel (see Tob 7:6) and Gabael (see Tob 9:6). Moreover, “righteousness” is God’s main attribute in (blind) Tobit’s eyes (see 3:2) and together with almsgiving, it is enjoined on Tobiah as a God pleasing way of life (see 4:5.7). 4Q197 (4 ii 2), preserves this Aramaic diction the idea we are discussing: ‫ועליך דין קשטא גזר למ]סבה‬, “a right decision is made for you to t[ake her]”637 Verb δικαιόω, in classical Greek has mainly a forensic sense and thus bears relation with civil justice (and Law). From a legal sense, it comes signify more in general “doing what is fair or right.” It may also assume a theological connotation in that God, righteous and righteous judge, is the one who declares or treats something or someone as “just, righteous.”638 In Schrenk’s view, the double use of verb δικαιόω in Tobit (Tob 6 and 12:4) is referred with that primary legal sense.639 In Tob 6, Tobiah in fact is affirmed to have the “right” of “taking” Sarah as wife in relation to a Mosaic “law” of endogamy (6:13e). Besides its “lawful” aspect, such referral seems to grant to the δεδικαίωταί of v.13a, a theological aspect, also for proceeding from an angel’s mouth and in light of the narrator’s statement in 3:16–17 and Raphael’s words in 6:18e and 12:18. Hieke interpreted δεδικαίωταί in 6:13 as a “divine passive.”640 3.4.5.5 Θάνατον κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν τῆς βίβλου Μωυσέως Having construed the argumentation regarding marriage with Sarah more and more around the axis of the endogamic teaching of the book, the narrator then has the angel assuring Tobiah that such attractive a candidate for bride, is warranted for him even with a capital punishment to the girl’s father for a contrary decision. Intensifying such appealing statement, the angel connects it to the 637 The translation is Fitzmyer’s. See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 212. 638 See G. Schrenk, “δικαιόω,” TDNT, II, 211–213. 639 See Schrenk, “δικαιόω,” 213. 640 See T. Hieke, “Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, Genesis, and Ezra-Nehemiah”, The Book of Tobit – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 103–120, 109.

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) 

 219

authority of the “book of Moses.” Mosaic authority appears therefore, at least at first glance, the guarantor of such grave assertion. “Death penalty” according to the “judgement of the book of Moses” for disrespect of endogamic marriage, as commentators repeatedly noticed, is not even hinted in our present Pentateuch. Actually, no explicit precept regarding endogamy is found in our present OT legislation,641 Num 36:6 being perhaps the most explicit reference to such costume, certainly enacted in the patriarchal traditions. Because of that, the angel’s death penalty statement in 6:13, has become one of Tobit’s crux interpretum. The general argument of marriage in Tobit has been extensively studied.642 Specifically regarding the crux of Tob 6:13, we begin our considerations referring to the study of Mark Christian, entirely devoted to it.643 After a vastly documented and thorough discussion, taking into consideration various elements of the problem, Christian speculatively concludes that, (1) “within and without the land of Israel there existed repositories of both oral and written traditions, from which unique interpretations of authoritative texts and innovative laws like Tob 6:13 emanated;” (2) “social and religious needs of Yahwists living in Babylon and Egypt differed from those of their coreligionists in Palestine;” (3) “Praxis often preceded legislation” (certain laws like that of Tob 6:13 may have originated in established praxis of a given Diaspora group or family groups); (4) “References to Mosaic Torah in second temple literature suggest a perceived unity among Mosaic traditions based on a variety of factors;” and (5) “The perception and “unity” of Torah varied considerably.644 To those five main conclusions, Christian adds the even more speculative idea of the reactions Tobit’s precept may have provoked in the various Jewish-Israelite communities, in- and outside the land, finishing his study with an upraise of the methodological approach (“backwards and

641 See for instance Moore, Tobit, 204; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 213–214. 642 Besides some studies already mentioned on that argument, see G. D. Miller, “A Match Made in Heaven?: God’s Role in Marriage According to the Book of Tobit”, RivBib 57/2 (2009) 129–153; B. C. Gregory, “The Marriage of Tobias and Sarah in the Venerable Bede’s Commentary on Tobit”, Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ed. A. Passaro) (DCLY 2012/2013; 2013) 547–558; Miller, Marriage in the Book of Tobit, 132–158; U. Kellermann, Eheschlies̈ungen im frühen Judentum. Studien zur Rezeption der Leviratstora, zu den Eheschlies̈ungsritualen im Tobitbuch und zu den Ehen der Samaritanerin in Johannes 4 (DCLS 21; Berlin – München [u.a.] 2014) 117–214; L. Mazzinghi, “La coppia nel libro di Tobia: fra tradizione e novità”, RSB 1/2 (2018) 55–80. 643 See M. A. Christian, “Reading Tobit Backwards and Forwards: In Search of «Lost Halakhah»”, Henoch 28/1 (2006) 63–95. 644 See Christian, “Reading Tobit Backwards”, 90–94.

220 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

forwards” reading) that inspired the title of his study.645 Bearing in mind such interpretive proposal, let us now examine more closely the text of Tob 6:13e in its linguistic, literary and narrative features, to be able to evaluate better also that and other interpretations suggested in its regard. ̓ Επίσταμαι/γινώσκειν Constituting the strongest argument of the whole argumentative process of the angel’s first discourse, the statement of v.13e possesses a markedly rhetorical forcefulness. The ever more intense psychological appeal of the angel’s argumentative articulation, evident in a crescendo as the section comes to its resolution, strengthens such rhetoric. Furthermore, as already noted, Raphael’s central statement in v.13 is uttered within a designed cluster. The statement regarding death penalty according to Mosaic Law is uttered between a twofold declaration of awareness. Azariah-Raphael states to be sure (ἐπίσταμαι)646 of Raguel’s total “incapability” (οὐ μὴ δυνηθῇ, note the double negative) of refraining to give Sarah to Tobiah as wife or approaching her to another, for he knows that (διὰ τὸ γινώσκειν ὅτι) Tobiah more than anyone else would have the right to marry his daughter. Proceeding otherwise, states Raphael in between, Raguel would incur in death penalty according to the “sentence” (κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν) of the Law of Moses. If that would have been the case, the attentive reader would ask, how then had Raguel already “given” Sarah to seven husbands (see 7:11) before Tobiah and had not died? Death “penalty” was in fact resultant from the previous intents of giving Sarah in marriage, ironically not for Raguel but Sarah’s previous suitors by the “hands” of an envious demon who was definitively and unlawfully able to “have” her! The narrator is diaphanously clear in that regard.647 In light of that, we may immediately state that a series of twisted statements appear thus to be implied in the angel’s words. We may notice in that regard that the exact same expression of assurance (ἐπίσταμαι) occurs previously in Azariah’s redundant words to Tobiah and then to Tobit regarding his knowledge of the ways to Media. To naïve Tobiah, Azariah gives the exact opposite topographical description regarding Rages and Ecbatana (5:6); To blind Tobit, the angel assures that he know all the ways (ἐπίσταμαι ἐγὼ τὰς ὁδοὺς πάσας): many times having gone to Media, he knows the plain,

645 Such methodology as it appears has been first suggested by J. Kugel. See Christian, “Reading Tobit Backwards”, 94–95. An more detailed explanation of that methodological proposal is found on pp. 74–76 of his study. 646 See GELS, 281. 647 See 3:7–8.

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) 

 221

the mountains and all the roads (when by the end of a whole travel day, Azariah and Tobiah find themselves still in the thereabouts of the Tigris!) In both cases, Azariah’s statements are loaded with irony, aspect that overlooked, misleads the reader in his perception of the angel’s character.648 Through such narrative articulation, irony and jest are created, serving both to entertain and instruct. Verb ἐπίσταμαι occurs one last time in the angel’s mouth in 11:7, as the angel motivates Tobiah to believe in the effectiveness of the fish’s gall for healing his father. Having experienced the efficacy of his companion’s words for the “healing” of his bride, Azariah’s new statement of assurance become ironical. Through such ironical twist, the narrator intensifies once more the reader’s involvement in the story, who continues to know more than the character. Aware of Azariah’s true identity, he (the reader) sole, knew the demon’s definitive defeat by the hands of Raphael, while Tobiah and Sarah pray to God, vanishing the vile smell of the fish’s heart and liver as the ashes cool down, serenely prepare themselves to get together as spouses. O̓φειλήσειν θάνατον Verb ὀφείλω also used in GI, occurs in the LXX 14x extra its occurrence in Tobit. The verb has the basic meaning of “owing someone something” (as for instance in 1 Macc 10:43 and 13:15) thus bearing an intrinsic relationship to justice. “The negative concept of payment becomes the positive one of moral indebtedness and obligation.”649 In relation to law therefore it has the sense of “making oneself liable to a penalty” (for some infraction, understood).650 No evidence from Qumran fragments is left for its Semitic diction. Later evidence, however, suggests Aramaic ‫חיב‬/‫חוב‬, “to owe,” as its closest equivalent.651 The angel’s statement of “owed” death penalty for disrespect of endogamy appear disproportionate and unfair. In that regard, however, we may recall that several prescriptions of Pentateuchal legislation that entail death penalty, regard family, marriage and sexuality: striking or merely cursing father or mother, deserves capital punishment according to Exod 21:15.17 (|| Lev 20:9); adultery according to Lev 20:10; incest according to Lev 20:11–12.14; homosexual acts, according to Lev 20:13; zoophilia or bestiality, to Exod 22:18 (|| Lev 20:15–16). According to the witness of John’s

648 Recall note 388, p. 159. 649 F. Hauck, ὀφείλω, TDNT, V, 560–565, 560. 650 See LS, 1277; GELS, 516; HATIS, 88. 651 See ATTM I, 573. According to Hauck, in the word group ὀφειλ- (common in the NT and with a concentration in Matthew), the Aramaic ‫“ חיב‬shines through strongly.” See Hauck, ὀφείλω, 562.

222 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

gospel, still during NT times, punishment of stoning to death according to Mosaic law was practiced in Israel for cases of adultery (see John 8:3–5) and according to Acts 6:7–8:1, for blasphemy (see Lev 24:11–16). As far as the formal aspect of the penalty is concerned, we may notice that “capital punishment” is the maximal or highest limit of justice, and therefore its most severe penalty. The form in which Mosaic-atributted legislative traditions existed, circulated and were interpreted, specially in the Diaspora, remains a broad and open problem. Reference to capital punishment, whether or not strictly applied, appears to have had also a socio-pedagogical function, in stressing individuals the gravity of a given action referred or alluded to through a given positive law. Kατὰ τὴν κρίσιν τῆς βίβλου Μωυσέως According to the angel’s word, death penalty for disrespect of endogamy would be according to “the judgment of the book of Moses” (in GI simply as “according to the Law of Moses,” κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωυσῆ). The same expression is used by Raguel while formalizing Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah in 7:11.652 Commentators have repeatedly stated that neither an endogamic precept nor a marriage “ritual” according to Tobit 7 is specified in our present Pentateuch.653 As Schöpflin noted, it is striking that the phrases quoted above “include references to Moses’ κρίσις, “judgment” or “decision;” this evokes the impression that Moses himself is the decisive authority one relies on.”654 The issue of the “book of Moses” in Tobit, is still matter of controversy.655 Considering Tobit’s acquaintance with Deuteronomic ideas as shown by Di Lella656 and Weitzmann,657 Tobit’s author could have had in mind some form of the book of Deuteronomy while alluding to “the book of Moses.”658 In Tob 1:4–6, in fact, while referring to the precept of Jerusalem 652 καὶ αὐτὴ δίδοταί σοι κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν τῆς βίβλου Μωυσέως. 653 See in that regard K. Schöpflin, “Scriptural Authority and the Ancestor as its Teacher and Example in the Book of Tobit”, Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity (eds. I. Kalimi – T. Nicklas – G. G. Xeravits) (DCLS 16; Berlin 2013) 85–107, 90–94. 654 See Schöpflin, “Scriptural Authority”, 91–92 655 Besides the studies mentioned before, see also in that regard, J. Gamberoni, “Das „Gesetz des Mose” im Buch Tobias”, Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag. (Wien 1977) 227–242; Collins, “Judaism”, 29–34; J. J. Collins, “Wisdom and Torah”, Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Ed. K.M.Hogan – M. Goff – E. Wasserman) (EJL 41; Atlanta, GA 2017) 59–80. 656 See Di Lella, “The Deuteronomic Background”, 381–387. 657 See S. Weitzman, “Allusion, Artifice and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit”, JBL 115/1 (1996) 49–61, 56–58. 658 See also in that regard N. J. Hofmann, “Die Rezeption des Dtn im Buch Tobit, in der Assumptio Mosis und im 4. Esrabuch”, Das Deuteronomium (Hrsg. G. Braulik) (OBS 23; Frankfurt

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) 

 223

as cultic center for all Israel, Tobit alludes to a written prescription for all Israel (καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν παντὶ Ἰσραὴλ ἐν προστάγματι αἰωνίῳ).659 Although no reference to Moses or to Mosaic authority is explicitly found at that point, it is broadly recognized such reference to be an allusion to precepts contained in our present Deuteronomy (see for instance Deut 12:1–14).660 Collins for his part, sustains that “the author of Tobit was evidently familiar with “the book of Moses” in some form,” with “book of Moses” referring to the Pentateuch. However, in his view, such expression in Tobit, more than point to specific biblical law, point to ancestral traditions, “which derive authority from Moses even when they go beyond what is written in the Torah.”661 Moore sustained that, “Since the Pentateuch contains no such law, the narrator may have had in mind a halakic interpretation of a pentateuchal passage (possibly Num 27:1–11 / 36:5–9) and viewed the oral law as Mosaic.”662 Perhaps “Raphael’s reference to a «decree of the book of Moses» may in fact be a reference to a particular exegesis or interpretation of the law on levirate marriage or some similar passage.”663 In that regard we may recall that in 1:8, Tobit seems to equate Mosaic authority with that of the ancestral or at least that the ancestral plays an important part not only for the transmission of Mosaic Law but also for its interpretation and manner of living it in the variating circumstances.664 As regarding Tobit’s teaching on works of charity, its

am Main 2003) 311–342; see also regarding Deuteronomism in Tobit, S. Weeks, “A Deuteronomistic Heritage in Tobit?”, Changes in Scripture. Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second TemplePeriod (ed. textscH. von Weissenberg – J. Pakkala – M. Marttila) (BZAW 419; Berlin – New York, NY 2011) 389–404; Kiel, The ”Whole Truth”, 25–78. 659 Similar expressions regarding Mosaic authority are found in the LXX for instance in Jos 9:2 (καθότι ἐνετείλατο Μωυσῆς ὁ θεράπων κυρίου τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ καθὰ γέγραπται ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωυσῆ); 1 Chr 16:40 (καὶ κατὰ πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν νόμῳ κυρίου ὅσα ἐνετείλατο ἐφ᾽ υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ ἐν χειρὶ Μωυσῆ τοῦ θεράποντος τοῦ θεου); Neh 8:14 (καὶ εὕροσαν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ᾧ ἐνετείλατο κύριος τῷ Μωυσῆ); Bar 2:2 (κατὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωυσῆ); Dan 9:11 (ὁ γεγραμμένος ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωσῆ); Dan 9:13 (Th) (καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωυσῆ). In all these occurrences it is particularly striking the reference to a written source of Mosaic traditions and in relation specifically to cultic matters. 660 Tobit’s phraseology in 1:4 appears dependent also on 1 Kgs 11:32 (LXX), which presents in narrative form, part of the Deuteronomic prescriptions, turning explicit their relation to Jerusalem (as the sole cultic center). 661 See Collins, “Judaism”, 33.32. 662 See GELS, 414. 663 See Grabbe, “Tobit”, 743. 664 See Schöpflin, “Scriptural Authority”, 94–104; Macatangay, Wisdom Instructions, 262–270; See also K. Schöpflin, “Women’s Roles in the Narrative and Theology of the Book of Tobit”, Religion and Female Body in Ancient Judaism and Its Environments (ed. G. G. Xeravits) (DCLS 25; Boston 2015) 173–185.

224 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

teaching on endogamy, finally the main argument at stake already at this point of the angel’s discourse, finds no explicit reference in the Mosaic Law. With respect to endogamy it is the patriarchal example and authority that is evoked (recall 4:12).665 Tobit there reminds Tobiah that their glorious ancestors “took wife from among their kinsmen, they were blessed in their children and their descendants shall inherit the land,” tremendous assurance for a pious Israelite ears! In that regard it is perhaps worthy recalling that at least in one place in the LXX, in Dan 2:45, the term κρίσις is translated with the sense of “interpretation” (rendering Aramaic ‫)פשר‬. In that sense,through Raphael and Raguel’s use of “judgement, sentence” of the book of Moses, the author could be appealing to an interpretation of Mosaic law in vogue in the author’s time in Diaspora circles regarding those issues.666 Fröhlich suggested Tobit’s connection to Enoch traditions regarding divine established order, human sexuality, endogamy and lust.667 Related to the story of our present Gen 6:1–8, Enoch traditions expand on the idea of divine punishment (the flood) to disrespect of divine established boundaries regarding sexuality (some “Watchers”, celestial beings, lust for woman and have intercourse with them). That extreme case of exogamous “marriage” deserved capital punishment according to divine judgement found in Genesis. Number’s Prescription Regarding the “Daughters of Zelophedad” (Num 36:6–9) As suggested by some authors, the angel’s “judgement according to the Book of Moses” may have found inspiration in the prescriptions transmitted in our present book of Numbers, regarding the “daughters of Zelophedad” (see 36:6–9), presuming the author’s acquaintance with some form of that tradition. Considering the significance of that text for our present discussion, we quote it here integrally, according to the NAB translation: 36:6 This is what the LORD commands with regard to the daughters of Zelophehad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, 7so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage. 8Every daughter who inherits property in any of the

665 See Macatangay, Wisdom Instructions, 84–87; B. Ego, “Tobits weisheitliches Vermächtnis (Tob 4): narratologische und theologische Aspekte”, Weisheit als Lebensgrundlage. Festschrift für Friedrich V. Reiterer zum 65. Geburtstag (Hrsg. R. Egger-Wenzel – K. Schöpflin – J. F. Diehl) (Berlin 2013) 95–122, 114–115. 666 See GELS, 414. 667 See I. Fröhlich, “Wisdom in the Book of Tobit”, Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals. Papers of the Jubilee Meeting of the International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books (ed. G. G. Xeravits – Zsengellér – X. Szabó) (DCLS 22; Berlin ; Boston 2014) 247–259, 252–256.

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) 

 225

Israelite tribes will marry someone belonging to a clan of her own ancestral tribe, in order that all the Israelites may remain in possession of their own ancestral heritage. 9Thus, no heritage will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelite tribes will retain their own ancestral heritage.

Chapter 26 of Numbers refer to a census, commanded by the LORD to Moses, of the people of Israel for military purposes. There follows a lengthy list of all male Israelites of twenty years or more, from the various tribes and families that were enrolled for the Israelite army in the plains of Moab (see Num 26:1–32). While referring the families of the tribe of Manasseh, the narrator notes that Zelophedad son of Hepher, had no sons but only daughters, in number of five, all mentioned by name (see Num 26:32). Numbers 27 then recounts the plea of Zelophedad daughters to Moses and the priest Eleazar: since their father died without male sons, they require right of inheritance (27:1–4). There follows then Moses’ prescriptions to be followed in similar situations among the Israelites (see 27:5–11), which emerges clearly as a verdict from a judgement. A particular case is presented; no law was established; the legislator under divine authority emanates a sentence and a law for posterity. Noteworthy, the case and legislation of the daughters of Zelophedad is brought once more to Moses’ consideration in Num 36 (chapter that concludes our present book of Numbers), by “the heads of the ancestral houses in a clan of the descendants of Gilead, son of Machir, son of Manasseh– one of the Josephite clans.” That new plea constitutes in narrative form the Torah more explicit statement regarding endogamy and inheritance, although reference to death punishment is not even suggested regarding it. The halakhic problem presented to Moses in Num 36:3–4 is the following: if one of Zelophedad’s daughter marries a man outside of their ancestral house Manasseh, that would constitute loss of property to that clan considering that her patrimony would go to one of another tribe. Before such new plea, considered fair by the legislator, the LORD commands through him further precepts regarding the girls’ and similar situations among the sons of Israel (36:6–12), whose summary constitutes the statement of v.6: “This is what the LORD commands with regard to the daughters of Zelophedad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe.” The narrator then concludes the account stating that the daughter’s of Zelophedad, “married within the clans of the descendants of Manasseh, son of Joseph; hence their heritage remained in the tribe of their father’s clan.” It is difficult not to hear such tradition resounding in the angel’s argumentation to Tobiah in 6:12–13, especially in its vocabulary of inheritance. The numerous points of contact between the two texts are striking, specially when one reads the account in the LXX. Whether or not that precise legislative tradition our author had specially in mind or before his eyes

226 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

while composing the angel’s discourse is not simple to demonstrate. Considering that allusions to still other Pentateuch legislative traditions are detectable in Tob 6:12–23, perhaps, with Vílchez Líndez, is more prudent to sustain that Tobit’s author combined several legislative traditions (like those found in Num 27 and 36).668 Or perhaps, in light of the possible rendering of Greek κρίσις, with the sense of “interpretation,” Tobit’s author could be alluding to an interpretation of those or other Mosaic legislative traditions in vogue at his time in Diaspora circles. Kληρονομία καθήκει Verb καθήκω, used in the Greek text to continue the argument of v.13e, conveys the idea of “to be meet, proper, fitting,”669 or “to belong to, to be due to.”670 With only few occurrences in the LXX, the verb is used to refer to a custom (like in Gen 19:31; 1 Macc 10:36), to an established procedure according to the Law (as in Lev 5:10; 9:16; 1 Esd 1:13; Tob 1:8 {GI}) or to a right (as in Deut 21:17). In cases where a Hebrew equivalent is found, the commonest subjacent expression is ‫כמשפט‬,671 which underlines the legitimacy of something in relation to some established order or prescription. Noteworthy, an important difference is found among witnesses regarding that idea. Contrary to GII, GI and OL readings refer Raguel’s inheritance and not Sarah as what is fitting to Tobiah by right.672 According to the sense of verb καθήκω, the term κληρονομία paired with it in the phrase assumes the sense of “right” (in relation to the Law understood).673 The term κληρονομία, although in the nominative, is in effect the predicate of verb καθήκω, fronted with the personal pronoun in oblique case for the sake of emphasis.

668 See Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 131. 669 See LS, 852; GELS, 349. 670 See LEH, 295. 671 See HATIS, 60. 672 GI: “For I know that Raguel may not give her to any other man according to the law of the Book of Moses without incurring death, because you have the right beyond any other man to receive the inheritance” (ἐπίσταμαι Ραγουηλ ὅτι οὐ μὴ δῷ αὐτὴν ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωυσῆ ἢ ὀφειλέσει θάνατον ὅτι τὴν κληρονομίαν σοὶ καθήκει λαβεῖν ἢ πάντα ἄνθρωπον) /OL: “I  know, however, that Raguel will not deny her to you; for he knows that if he gives her to another man he will perish according to the judgment of the Book of Moses, because he knows that his inheritance is especially suited for you more than for any other man” (Scio autem quia Raguhel non negabit illam tibi; nouit enim quia si dederit illam uiro alio morte periet secundum iudicium libri Moysi: et quia scit tibi maxime aptam esse haereditatem illius magis quam alicui homini). 673 See Moore, Tobit, 196; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 213.

3.4 Raphael Proposes to Tobiah a Marriage to Sarah (Tob 6:10–18) 

 227

Irony in Raphael’s Statement of Tob 6:13e and Raguel’s in 7:10 Interestingly, Raphael’s words in 6:13e, resounds in Raguel’s to Tobiah in 7:10. The texts coincide in the Semitizing diction of “taking wife” referring to marriage, the idea of kinship closeness (which constitutes he positive element of the endogamic precept) and Raguel’s “incapability” of giving Sarah to another man. The main difference between the two lies precisely in the silence of 7:10 about a “death penalty according to the book of Moses,” although Raguel’s statement of powerlessness (καὶ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἔχω ἐξουσίαν δοῦναι αὐτὴν ἑτέρῳ ἀνδρὶ πλὴν σοῦ) could bear relationship to it. Table 3.13 below, displays a comparative view of those verses for a better appreciation of that narrative process: Table 3.13: Comparative view of Tob 6:13e and 7:10. 6:13e

καὶ ἐπίσταμαι ὅτι οʋ᾽ μὴ δʋνηθῇ Ραγοʋηλ κωλʋ˜σαι αʋ᾽τὴν ἀπὸ σοʋ˜ ἢ ἐγγʋᾶσθαι ἑτέρῳ ὀφειλήσειν θάνατον κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν τῆς βίβλου Μωυσέως διὰ τὸ γινώσκειν ὅτι σοὶ κληρονομία καθήκει λαβεῖν τὴν θυγατέρα αὐτοʋ˜ παρὰ πάντα ἄνθρωπον

7:10

καὶ ἤκοʋσεν Ῥαγοʋὴλ τὸν λόγον καὶ εἶπεν τῷ παιδί φάγε καὶ πίε καὶ ἡδέως γενοʋ˜ τὴν νʋ́κτα ταʋ́την οʋ᾽ γάρ ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ᾧ καθήκει λαβεῖν Σάρραν τὴν θυγατέρα μου πλὴν σοʋ˜ ἄδελφε ὡσαʋ́τως δὲ καὶ ἐγὼ οʋ᾽κ ἔχω ἐξοʋσίαν δοʋ˜ναι αʋ᾽τὴν ἑτέρῳ ἀνδρὶ πλὴν σοʋ˜ ὅτι σὺ ἔγγιστά μοʋ

As noted before, Raphael’s statement regarding death penalty according to the judgement of the book of Moses, considering the irony of the narrative situation (death penalty to Sarah’s suitors instead) appears loaded with irony. So far in the narrative, irony has been produced, both verbal and dramatic, in Raphael’s relationship with young Tobiah, in base of Tobiah’s unawareness of his interlocutor’s true identity as an angel of God contrasted with the reader’s acquaintance with it. It is worthy anticipating here that Raphael’s statement of death penalty in 6:13 activates Tobiah’s objection regarding his potential death in case of acceptance of marrying Sarah. Such objection intensifies even more the irony of Raphael’s utterance. Judging by the effect that the angel’s words produce in Tobiah, the irony adjacent in his death penalty statement, appears to serve Azariah to strengthen the psychological dynamics of his appeal regarding marriage with Sarah. While underlining the gravity of the matter through Raguel’s supposed capital punishment, the irony of Raphael’s statement has the effect of reviving vividly through the theme of death, Tobiah’s filial piety for its connection to the theme of proper burial, which regarding his parents was also one of his father’s commands in Tob 4 (see Tob 4:3–4). Such inner revival plays an essential role for the forcefulness of the angel’s decisive argument regarding Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah in 6:16.

228 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Irony is also detectable in Raguel’s words to Tobiah in 7:10. Important for that grasping, appears Raguel’s correctio674 stated right after his initial solemn words (καὶ μάλα τὴν ἀλήθειάν σοι ὑποδείξω παιδίον): the whole truth is that Raguel tried to give Sarah to seven men “from our brothers” already, having all died the very night they tried to approach her (ἔδωκα αὐτὴν ἑπτὰ ἀνδράσιν τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν καὶ πάντες ἀπέθανον τὴν νύκτα ὁπότε εἰσεπορεύοντο πρὸς αὐτήν). Raguel’s sincere declaration in that correctio also intensifies the irony of the angel’s statement in 6:13 for highlighting that, in any case, Sarah had been previously given in marriage not to strangers, but to “men from among our brothers,” therefore to kinsmen. Endogamy appears to have been clearly respected according to such statement. Irony is created in Raguel’s statement, precisely for the solemn manner he states Tobiah’s right to marry before any other man, words at the border of cynicism. Furthermore, the gruesome aspect of Raguel’s double invitation to eating and drinking, as noted by Fitzmyer following Dancy (7:10 καὶ εἶπεν τῷ παιδί φάγε καὶ πίε καὶ ἡδέως γενοῦ τὴν νύκτα ταύτην /7:11 καὶ νῦν παιδίον φάγε καὶ πίε καὶ κύριος ποιήσει ἐν ὑμῖν)675 seems to intensify that ironical articulation. Death “penalty” was really involved in attempts to marry Raguel’s daughter. However, not regarding the father according to a literal understanding of the angel’s statement, but for the action of a demon, who disrespecting the limits of his nature, lusting for Sarah, discharged his frustrated envy in killing the suitors.676

Commentary The second part of the angel’s first discourse to Tobiah (Tob 6:13) appears even more incisive regarding the issue of marriage with Sarah. In that light, their becoming spouses begins to be stressed as the essential component of the angel’s mission with respect to Sarah’s healing (recall 3:17). Since Azariah’s first words 674 See in that regard Aletti, et al., Vocabulaire, 99. 675 Most likely an allusion to the saying found in Isa 22:13: αὐτοὶ δὲ ἐποιήσαντο εὐφροσύνην καὶ ἀγαλλίαμα σφάζοντες μόσχους καὶ θύοντες πρόβατα ὥστε φαγεῖν κρέα καὶ πιεῖν οἶνον λέγοντες φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνῄσκομεν (NAB: But look! instead, there was celebration and joy, slaughtering cattle and butchering sheep, eating meat and drinking wine: “Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”). See Dancy, Shorter Books of the Apocrypha, 43; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 230. 676 According to the description given in Tob 3:8, the demon’s wickedness manifests itself in frustrated lust, that generates envy and wrath and materializes in killing activity (noteworthy his association with death). As it appears, considering that the theme of envy is implied in Asmodeus’ killing activity, Tobit’s narrative statement in that regard appears to be an anticipation of what the author of Wisdom will affirm almost two centuries later: “But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are allied with him experience it” (see Wis 2:24).

3.5 Tobiah Knew about the Demon! (Tob 6:14–15) 

 229

in 6:11, a process began to emerge as an appeal to Tobiah’s conscience and free will, towards a free acceptance of marrying Sarah. Such appeal appears artfully articulated in a crescendo. Since the first part of his speech (6:11–12), the angel tries to redirect Tobiah’s attention, from Rages to Ecbatana, from money retrieval to family constitution. If in the initial section, the focus was the person of Sarah and her material wellbeing, now Azariah’s emphasis falls on the values connected with the marriage process with her. Endogamy, subtilely suggested in v.12, becomes the core argument of the segment in v.13e. The angel’s ironical statement regarding death penalty for disrespect of endogamy and that in connection to Mosaic authority, add intensity to the angel’s appeal to Tobiah, which grows in a crescendo. Such appeal continues to stir important inner values in the lad’s conscience, as Tobiah’s words will soon reveal, especially his filial piety, essential for the angel’s decisive “thrust” of v.16. For that whole process in action since the beginning of the angel’s discourse discourse, Azariah’s vocabulary, resounding Tobit’s in chapter 4, appears to play an important role in such psychological solicitation as well as his double mention of Rages, which serves to keep the narrative coherence and character consistency. A closer consideration of the angel’s utterances, allows us to realize the narrator’s artful articulation at level of the communicative dynamics and ideology of the text, of important ideas of his time and of the book as a whole, that Tob 6 contains, discusses, emphasizes. Moreover, through such discursive articulation, the narrator continues the process initiated from the beginning of chapter 6, in fact, since the argument of Tobiah’s travel is spotted (Tob 4): Tobiah’s maturation as a character. In light of the angel’s speech articulation at this point, Tobiah’s maturing process initiated with his leaving home towards the unknown, his detachment of the familial protection, is being effected through attentive listening and operating, pondering and questioning.

3.5 Tobiah Knew about the Demon! (Tob 6:14–15) As noted by Priero, “La proposta di sposare Sara è lusinghiera, ma di contro stanno difficoltà che sembrano insormontabili: sono quelle che egli avanzerà fra poco (vv.14–15) e sulle quali si accende appunto l’interesse del dialogo.”677 Such “unsurmountable” difficulties is what Tobiah now presents to Azariah, in response to his argumentation specially in v.13. The idea of death, vividly affirmed in the angel’s central statement of v.13 (13e), reveals itself particularly effective in reviving Tobiah’s filial piety, as the very words of his reply in vv.14–15 reveal. In it,

677 See Priero, Tobia, 101.

230 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Tobiah surprises the reader of being aware, from hearsay, of Sarah’s tremendous fate. Tobiah’s reply prepares the angel’s final and decisive argument, to evince Tobiah’s free acceptance of marrying Sarah.

Exegesis 3.5.1 Composition of VV.14–15 Repeatedly found in Tobit and already found in Tob 6, the narrator’s use of the literary inclusions, by repetition of synonymic or exact terms, serves as a highlighting device of the sequence’s most important ideas. Thus, the verbal form ἤκουσα in v.14a forms an inclusion with its repetition in v.14c, highlighting the specific idea regarding the death of Sarah’s previous suitors of v.14b. Likewise, the repetition of ἀποκτέννει αὐτούς / ἀποκτέννει αὐτόν in vv.14c.15b, highlights the idea of Tobiah’s fear and its motivation. Last, the idea of Tobiah’s being Tobit’s only-begotten son positively stated in v.15b (μονογενής εἰμι τῷ πατρί μου) and restated in negative form in the beginning of v.15d (καὶ υἱὸς ἕτερος οὐχ ὑπάρχει αὐτοῖς), serves to stress Tobiah’s piety expressed in his concern for his parent’s suffering in case of a premature death of his. Such inner hook ups, stitching neatly the sequence’s parts, serves to highlight its important last idea regarding burial of the dead, which otherwise would remain a mere appendix in it.

3.5.2 “I Heard That...They All Died In The Bridal Chamber” (v.14) 3.5.2.1 Text Critical Note In the sentence in which Tobiah reveals his awareness of Sarah’s previous suitor’s terrible fate (v.14b), the idea of their killing by the demon in GII, appears redundant in its double use of verb ἀποθνῄσκω, “to die, to suffer death” (καὶ ἀπέθανον...καὶ ἀπέθνῃσκον). Both GI (ἀπολωλότας) and OL (et mortui sunt) read only one mention of the idea of dying.678 The verbal repetition καὶ ἀπέθνῃσκον in the end of v.14 could be the result of dittography on behalf of the translator/ copyist of GII, considering the occurrence of verb ἀποκτείνω in the end of the verse.

678 See WGS, 192–193

3.5 Tobiah Knew about the Demon! (Tob 6:14–15) 

 231

3.5.2.2 Εἰσεπορεύοντο πρὸς (v.14b) It appears rather peculiar Tobiah’s specification, also part of the hearsay version, of the exact moment when “death penalty” was inflicted to Sarah’s previous suitors. The very first marriage night and in the very moment when the newlywed spouse tried to “approach” his wife, they were killed by the demon! GII diction of, literally “entering to/towards her,” resounds a Semitism to refer to the sexual intercourse. In effect, OT expressions to refer to that aspect of marriage, grow from the more modest saying of a man “knowing” his woman (for example in Gen 4:1) to the more explicit of “laying with” (as in Gen 19:33; 39:7; 2 Sam 11;4), to the more graphic expression of “entering” a woman (see Gen 16:4; 29:23.30; 38:16). As it appears it is to that last expression that Tob 6:14b alludes. In effect, Greek diction εἰσέρχομαι+πρός is LXX equivalent of Hebrew ‫אל‬+‫בוא‬. Therefore, once more in the narrative emerges the theme of sexuality related or implied in Sarah’s plight. Furthermore, the fact that the demon kills Sarah’s suitors in the very moment when they try to consummate marriage (the imperfect may be read with a conative sense), supports the suggestion of ours and other commentators, regarding the allusions of Tobit to the Enoch traditions regarding the fallen angels. Implied in that narrative articulation is the demon’s lust regarding Sarah, which frustrated, gets transformed into wrath, resulting in the assassination of innocent men. Asmodeus has no power to “touch” Sarah and thus does not allow anybody else to do so. Owens called attention to the significance of the “bed-motif” in Tobit also in connection with death.679 Specifically in relation to Sarah, the “bed-motif” evokes the death of her seven tried-to-become husbands, Asmodeus and sexuality. Because of that, the “bed-motif” instead of being a symbol of life, for its relation to conception and birth, had been for Sarah a “place” of infertility and death.

3.5.3 “I too Am Afraid of That Demon” (v.15a) 3.5.3.1 Text Critical Note A more important text critical problem in this segment relates to Tob 6:15. Most witnesses transmit the idea, absent in GII, that the demon “loved” Sarah, before the statement of its doing no harm to her. Besides GI (ὅτι δαιμόνιον φιλεῖ αὐτήν) and OL ({et nunc timeo hoc daemonium} quoniam diligit illam), singularly we count with fragments of two different manuscripts witnessing to the antiquity of that reading (4Q196 (14 i 4–5): ‫] [די ר]ח[ם לה‬, “that lo[v]es her;” 4Q197 (4 ii 9):

679 See Owens, “Asmodeus”, 282–286.

232 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

[‫]וכען ד[חל אנה ]מ[ן שדא די ]רחם לה‬, “[now] I am [af]raid [o]f the demon that [loves her]). MS 319, the other important witness of GII, transmits also such reading in 6:15 (ὃτι φίλει αὐτήν).680 Such statement could be interpreted as a gloss to give a better rationale for the demon’s killing activity. The heavy textual evidence however, suggests that in any case, if not “original,” such a “gloss” was part of the text at a very early stage of Tobit’s textual transmission, considering its presence in our oldest available witnesses (Q). Striking is also the coincidence of OL with Q against GII. Textual evidence thus suggests that perhaps the Sinaiticus of GII dropped such reading for some reason. In fact, the problem we encounter now in v.15 constitutes the second of similar nature in Tob 6 in GII (recall discussion regarding 6:12). The idea of the demon’s love for Sarah, seems inferable in GII as it is, in any case. In light of the textual evidence and considering its narrative coherence with Asmodeus’ characterization in the story, as regarding 6:12, we have integrated the statement regarding the demon’s love for Sarah in our translation of 6:15 and interpreted the text accordingly.

3.5.4 “No Other Son to Bury Them” (vv.15cd) The second part of Tobiah’s reply to Azariah (vv.15cd), brings into the discursive stage another of Tobit’s important themes, burial of the dead. The importance of such theme in the book is patent: already from the beginning of the story, by word and deed Tobit I-narrator emphasizes it (see Tob 1:17–20; 2:1–8). Moreover, Tobit’s sapiential exhortation to Tobiah in Tob 4 begins precisely highlighting such teaching (see 4:3–4). After its occurrence in Tob 6, the theme of burial of the dead, is recalled in a tragic-comic manner in the scene of Raguel’s digging of Tobiah’s tomb and then filling it up in Tob 8:9–11.18. The work is then endorsed as God-pleasing by Raphael, in his last instruction to Tobit and Tobiah (see Tob 12:8.12). Finally, it is underscored one last time in Tob 14:13 through Tobiah’s example. The angel’s allusion to the theme of death in v.13, arouses in Tobiah, not only the remembrance of the deadly demonic threat regarding marriage with Sarah with which he manifests acquaintance, but above all his concerns with his parents’ suffering in case of his death, introduced with an expression of fear. Tobiah is fully aware of being his parent’s only-begotten son; his premature death would cause them deep sorrow, which he wishes to avoid; if he dies, there would

680 See Ego, “‘Denn er liebt Sie’ (Tob 6,15 Ms. 319): Zur Rolle des Dämons Asmodäus in der Tobit-Erzählung”, 312; See also in that regard Fröhlich, “‘Because He Loves Her...’ The Figure of the Demon in the Book of Tobit”, 26.29–30.

3.5 Tobiah Knew about the Demon! (Tob 6:14–15) 

 233

no one else to fulfill the sacred duty of burying them properly. Tobiah’s expression of fear therefore (καὶ νῦν φοβοῦμαι ἐγώ), more than a concern for his own life or the demonic as such, is motivated by his filial piety. The revival of such inner value and motivation in Tobiah will play an essential role for the effectiveness of the angel’s (decisive) argument in 6:16. The phraseology of Tobiah’s words in v.15c appears to echo those of patriarch Jacob in Gen 37:35, safeguarding the obvious differences. If Tobit was composed in the oriental Diaspora, its insistence on proper burial of the dead could be a polemics against Zoroastrian ideas in that regard.681

Commentary It is noteworthy Tobiah’s double statement of hearsay regarding Sarah’s plight. With that the narrator’s make also an ironic commentary to a typical human behavior: gossip. As Priero rightly stated, “Cose di tal genere vengono presto portate sulle ali della voce popolare.”682 Tobiah’s statement of hearsay plays an 681 According to Zoroastrian views, corpses’ burial would contaminate, in a religious sense, earth, which is seen as sacred. Therefore, dead bodies are to be exposed for the birds of pray to devour. See Moulton, “The Iranian Background of Tobit”, 258; J. Russell, “God Is Good: On Tobit and Iran”, Iran & the Caucasus 5 (2001) 1–6, 2; Barr however thinks Tobit’s concern with proper burial of the dead, “has nothing to do directly with the peculiar disposal of the dead in Zoroastrian practice,” still active to our days. See J. Barr, “The Question of Religious Influence: The Case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity”, JAAR 53/2 (1985) 201–235, 217–218; Regarding the Zoroastrian’s so called “Towers of Silence,” see A.  V.  W. Jackson, “Avesta, the Bible of Zoroaster”, TBW 1/6 (1893) 420–431, 429; For a discussion on the spread of Zoroastrian ideas, see the interesting article of W.  Sundermann, “Zoroastrian Motifs in Non- Zoroastrian Traditions”, JRAS 18/2 (2008) 155–165; See A. P. Bender, “Beliefs, Rites, and Customs of the Jews, Connected with Death, Burial, and Mourning”, JQR 6/2 (1894) 317–347; B. Lorenz, “Bemerkungen zum Totenkult im Alten Testament”, VT 32/2 (1982) 229–234; B.  Lorenz, “Bestattung und Totenkult im Alten Testament”, ZRGG 42/1 (1990) 21 –31; E.  Diamond, “Wrestling the Angel of Death: Form and Meaning in Rabbinic Tales of Death and Dying”, JSJ 26/1 (1995) 76–92; Bolyki, “Burial as an Ethical Task in the Book of Tobit, in the Bible and in the Greek Tragedies”; C. A. Evans, “Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus”, JSHJ 3/2 (2005) 233–248; N. David, “Burial in the Book of Tobit and in Qumran”, The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context. Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures (ed. A. Lange – E. Tov  – M. Weingold) (VTSup 140; Leiden 2011) II  489–500; B.  Ego, “Death and Burial in the Tobit Narration in the Context of the Old Testament Tradition”, The Human Body in Death and Resurrection (ed. T. Nicklas – F. V. Reiterer – J. Verheyden). (DCLY 2009; Berlin 2009) 87–103; See also H. Efthimiadis-Keith, “The Significance of Food, Eating, Death and Burial in the Book of Tobit”, JSem 22 (2013) 553–578. 682 See Priero, Tobia, 102.

234 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

important function for the sense of the text at story level: it reinforces the idea of the literal sense of the dreadful fate of Sarah’s previous suitors (their physical death) and not merely metaphorical (as suggested by Haupt).683 Tobiah’s statement seems also important regarding the issue of endogamy in the story and the sense of the angel’s statement regarding death penalty as argued in the previous section. From such statement it is suggested the idea that the sad news about Sarah’s suitor’s gloomy fate became known among various Diaspora circles (recall also 7:10). The fact that Tobiah knew about the demon, puts the reader the question about how had he acquired such knowledge, regarding which the narrator stated nothing explicitly in the previous chapters. Such questioning, from the point of view of the communicative dynamics of the text, appears thus as a resource to keep the reader’s attention in the story through his involvement with the text. Furthermore, Tobiah’s double allusion to hearsay, suggests a certain doubt about the veracity of those statements. The mention of a killing demon, especially, turns the matter into one more of those popular gossip accounts regarding other person’s life. In any case, the fact that Sarah’s fate was as it appears of public domain, suggests that Raguel’s family and particularly his daughter, were objects of suspicion and mockery, as the maidservant’s words to Sarah in 3:8–9 bear witness to. The proposal of marriage with Sarah gradually gains momentum through the angel’s words to Tobiah. Construed in a clever manner, the first part of AzariahRaphael’s appeal activates a reply on Tobiah’s part. Such reply, shaped as an objection to the marriage proposal, constitutes another section of the travel story. Brief and concise as it may appear (only two brief verses) the sequence is particularly significant in the chapter from various points of view. At plot level, the sequence constitutes another narrative occasion for Tobiah’s manifestation as character, even if once more merely through speech (as in most of the plot up to the fish incident). Through his words, the narrator lets Tobiah manifest his inner thoughts, concerns and feelings. At level of the narrative rhetoric and the communicative dynamics of the text, Tobiah’s objection serves to produce the effect of “surprise,” created through the information of his detailed acquaintance with Sarah’s plight, even if from hearsay (v.14) so far kept unveiled to the reader. Such effect serves to increase the reader’s interest in the story, in a moment when the narrative has become weighed down by speech. Noteworthy, the first part of Tobiah’s concern in v.15 (μὴ ἀποθάνω καὶ κατάξω τὴν ζωὴν τοῦ πατρός μου καὶ τῆς μητρός μου μετ᾽ ὀδύνης ἐπ᾽ ἐμοὶ εἰς τὸν τάφον αὐτῶν), parallels in content to that of Sarah in 3:10 (καὶ κατάξω τὸ γῆρας τοῦ πατρός μου μετὰ λύπης εἰς ᾅδου·).

683 Recall discussion on p. 178–179.

3.5 Tobiah Knew about the Demon! (Tob 6:14–15) 

 235

The main difference between the two constitutes the omission of reference to the “mother” in Sarah’s words.684 The angel’s words, specially his statement regarding death penalty in the previous segment, are neatly connected to Tobiah’s statement of awareness of Sarah’s plight and his words of concern for proper burial of his parents. Regarding the later, Tobiah’s words evoke Tobit’s teaching, in fact the first, of his “testament” of chapter 4, the prelude of the travel arrangement and launching (Tob 5). The teaching of Tob 4:3–4 on proper burial of his father and mother, is enjoined on Tobiah having him been involved with it previously in first person (recall 2:1–8) and having before the eyes his father’s example (recall 1:17–21). Mediating Tobiah’s statement of total commitment with his father’s teachings of Tob 4 in 5:1, Tobiah’s answer in 6:15b appear intended to highlight that such teaching, after his father’s words and example, is to be understood instilled deep down his conscience. From a grammatical point of view, such articulation is stressed through the “parenthesis” of v.15b, created through its asyndetic ὅτι clause. Therefore, the angel’s words emerge as part of the narrative rhetoric to revive Tobiah’s filial piety, which as repeatedly stated plays an essential part for the effectiveness of the angel’s decisive argument that follows (v.16). Furthermore, Tobiah’s reply to Azariah here connects the scene to Tobiah’s questioning about the fish’s organs. Azariah’s reticent words about the fish’s organs there served to train the up-to-then passively obedient son of Tobit to ponder and question. Due to that, now, before the unexpected and serious proposal of his travel guide, involved with it in a profound manner for the arousal of his filial piety, Tobiah is capable to utter objections, to take position. The narrative articulation of 6:14–15, therefore, even if in a stylized manner and through such brief a narration, suggests that a process of growth is being articulated regarding Tobiah. The angel’s words, uttered in such crafted a manner, appear in that light designed to raise in Tobiah an inner process of discernment. Considering the matter in question, which implies his life and his person in a deep manner, his deliberative process signifies in fact a significant step forward as character. An important decision is put totally in Tobiah’s hands now through the dialogical articulation of Tob 6 up to now. With respect to the reader, Azariah-Raphael’s double speech interventions of vv.11b–13 serve to revive in his mind the angel’s mission regarding Sarah according to the narrator’s statement of 3:17, fulfillment of which, the narrator enacts densely through the dialogical section of Tob 6.685 684 Noteworthy, two fragments from Qumran witnesses to the antiquity to that double mention (of father and mother) in Tob 6:15 (4Q196 14 i 6: ‫ חי[י אבי ואמי‬/4Q197 4 ii 10: ‫)לא[בי ולאמי‬. 685 Raphael mission regarding Sarah’s deliverance, however, is finished in his binding of Asmodeus in Egypt, once the demon flees from Sarah’s room (8:1–3). Such happening will be a complete novelty to the already well-informed reader and revealed to him alone.

236 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

3.6 “Don’t You Remember Your Father’s Commands?” (Tob 6:16–18j) With v.16 we reach the angel’s decisive argument to evince Tobiah’s free acceptance of marriage with Sarah: the evocation of Tobit’s “command” on endogamy. The incisive effect of that statement does not occur simply ad hoc but as the reaching point of the rhetorical process of vv.11b–13. Raphael’s lengthy final speech to Tobiah of vv.16–18h, sharpens the sense of some of the chapter’s elements and introduces in the rhetorical scenario the so far hidden commander-in-chief of the whole process: the “Lord of heaven” (v.18c).

Exegesis 3.6.1 Structure Although not so symmetric as in the previous cases, the angel’s final words to Tobiah are also displayed in a well-designed composition. Table 3.14 below highlights its main components:

Table 3.14: Structured Version of Tob 6:16–18j. [16a] καὶ λέγει αʋ᾽τῷ [16b] οʋ᾽ μέμνησαι τὰς ἐντολὰς τοʋ˜ πατρός σοʋ ὅτι ἐνετείλατό σοι λαβεῖν γʋναῖκα ἐκ τοʋ˜ οἴκοʋ τοʋ˜ πατρός σοʋ; [16c] καὶ νʋ˜ν ἄκοʋσόν μοʋ ἄδελφε [16d] καὶ μὴ λόγον ἔχε τοʋ˜ δαιμονίοʋ τοʋ́τοʋ καὶ λαβέ [16e] καὶ γινώσκω ἐγὼ ὅτι τὴν νύκτα ταύτην δοθήσεταί σοι γυνή [17a–18b] καὶ ὅταν εἰσέλθῃς εἰς τὸν νʋμφῶνα [17a] λαβὲ ἐκ τοʋ˜ ἥπατος τοʋ˜ ἰχθʋ́ος καὶ τὴν καρδίαν καὶ ἐπίθες ἐπὶ τὴν τέφραν τῶν θʋμιαμάτων [17b] καὶ ἡ ὀσμὴ πο- ρεʋ́σεται [17c] καὶ ὀσφρανθήσεται τὸ δαιμόνιον καὶ φεʋ́ξεται [18a] καὶ οʋ᾽κέτι μὴ φανῇ περὶ αʋ᾽τὴν τὸν πάντα αἰῶνα [18b] [18cd] καὶ ὅταν μέλλῃς γίνεσθαι μετ᾽ αʋ᾽τῆς [18c] ἐξεγέρθητε πρῶτον ἀμφότε-ροι καὶ προσεʋ́ξασθε καὶ δεήθητε τοʋ˜ κʋρίοʋ τοʋ˜ οʋ᾽ρανοʋ˜ ἵνα ἔλεος γένηται καὶ σωτηρία ἐφ᾽ ʋ῾μᾶς [18d] [18e] καὶ μὴ φοβοʋ ˜ [18f] σοὶ γάρ ἐστιν μεμερισμένη πρὸ τοʋ˜ αἰῶνος [18g] καὶ σὺ αʋ᾽τὴν σώσεις [18h] καὶ μετὰ σοʋ˜ πορεʋ́σεται [18i] καὶ ὑπολαμβάνω ὅτι ἔσονταί σοι ἐξ αʋ᾽τῆς παιδία καὶ ἔσονταί σοι ὡς ἀδελφοί [18j] μὴ λόγον ἔχε

3.6 “Don’t You Remember Your Father’s Commands?” (Tob 6:16–18j) 

 237

As in the previous two segments, the angel’s last discourse begins with a solemn declaration. Now, in Tob 6:16b, it takes the form of a “rhetorical” question in negative format (“Don’t you remember”, οὐ μέμνησαι). The section’s phraseology mirrors statements from the previous ones and anticipates next ones (among other things for the sake of emphasis). Thus, its introductory formula, “And he spoke to him” (καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ), parallels in GII to that of v.11a (“Raphael spoke to the lad”, λέγει Ῥαφαὴλ τῷ παιδαρίω). The idea of “taking wife” of v.16b (λαβεῖν γυναῖκα) hooks up with Azariah’s statements of v.12b (κληρονομῆσαι αὐτήν) and 13a (δεδικαίωταί σοι λαβεῖν αὐτήν) and finds a counterpart in vv.16e (δοθήσεταί σοι γυνή) and 18e (σοὶ γάρ ἐστιν μεμερισμένη πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος), in such manner that the idea of endogamy is at various levels repeatedly stressed. The vocative “brother” is once more restated in v.16c, as it was in v.11a and v.13af. As argued below, such vocative also plays a role in the rhetoric of Raphael’s statement about Tobiah’s sons to be for him like “brothers” (ἔσονταί σοι ὡς ἀδελφοί). Moreover, the invitation to listening accompanying it, καὶ νῦν ἄκουσόν μου in v.16c, is also found in v.13b. There follows a double exhortation to trust (μὴ λόγον ἔχε) mediating one of fearlessness (μὴ φοβοῦ), which hooks up with Tobiah’s expression of fear in v.15a. The temporal reference to “this very night” (τὴν νύκτα ταύτην), introduced in v.11b and repeated again in v.13c, is restated in v.16e, connecting the motif also with its occurrence in the fish incident (v.2c) and assuming a similar rhetorical value. The nocturnal motif in the articulation of Tobiah’s travel, serves among other things to imprint a liminal feature to Tobiah’s experience (the marital night constituting the final step of his passage to adulthood). The introductory expression of v.16e (καὶ γινώσκω ἐγὼ ὅτι) mirrors that of v.13e (καὶ ἐπίσταμαι ὅτι /διὰ τὸ γινώσκειν ὅτι), emphasizing the reader the divine origin and authority of Tobiah’s interlocutor. The angel’s repeated use of terms relating to “taking,” then, presses on Tobiah’s decision of accepting Sarah as wife. Before v.18h (ὑπολαμβάνω), we find λαβέ in v.16d, λαβεῖν in v.16b, λημψόμεθα in v.13h, λαβεῖν in v.13e, λημψόμεθα in v.13c, and again λαβεῖν in v.13a. Furthermore, the grammatical passives of vv.16e (δοθήσεταί) and 18f (μεμερισμένη), appear related to one another. Mediating such connection appears the title “Lord of heaven” (κυρίου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) of v.18d, which becomes the “barycenter” of the two ὅταν clauses that convey Tobiah precise instructions regarding the driving away of the demon. The relationship of the grammatical passives to the divine title grant them a theological aspect. Noteworthy, the action Tobiah shall perform with respect to Sarah is referred to in terms of “salvation” (σωτηρία of v.18d; σώσεις of v.18g).686

686 On Tobit’s “technique of repetition,” we suggest particularly the reading of Macatangay, Wisdom Instructions, 134–139.

238 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

3.6.2 The Theme of Remembrance in V.16b The theme of “remembrance/remembering” in Tobit amounts eight occurrences with that of 6:16.687 As noted by Di Lella, “In all cases but one (4:1), the context explicitly refers to remembering as a religious activity of the faithful Israelite. And even in the one apparent exception in which «Tobit remembered the money he had deposited with Gabael» (4:1), the phrase, ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, immediately preceding the verb ἐμνήσθη, points not to a mere coincidence but to divine providence which is a prominent feature of the book (...)”688 Embedded with Deuteronomic language, the theme of remembering in Tobit appears to convey theological ideas. Noteworthy, its occurrence in 6:16 not only evokes but practically “quotes” ad literam Tobit’s words to Tobiah at the closing of his sapiential speech in 4:19. Table 3.15 below displays the texts in parallel: Table 3.15: Tob 4:19 Compared with Tob 6:16. 4:19

καὶ νʋ˜ν, παιδίον, μνημόνευε τὰς ἐντολὰς ταʋ́τας, καὶ μὴ ἐξαλειφθήτωσαν ἐκ τῆς καρδίας σοʋ

6:16

οʋ᾽ μέμνησαι τὰς ἐντολὰς τοʋ˜ πατρός σοʋ ὅτι ἐνετείλατό σοι λαβεῖν γʋναῖκα ἐκ τοʋ˜ οἴκοʋ τοʋ˜ πατρός σοʋ {καὶ νʋ˜ν ἄκοʋσόν μοʋ ἄδελφε}

In both sentences, the mix of Deuteronomic language with Proverbs’ like feature is remarkable. Term ἐντολή, “commission, order, command,” used mostly in the plural, occurs 50 times in the LXX as equivalent to Hebrew ‫מצוה‬. Circa 350 times, verb ἐντέλλομαι translate in the LXX, Hebrew ‫צוה‬, with 83 samples of that equivalence in Deuteronomy.689 Medieval Hebrew versions of Tobit also witness that equivalence.690. 4Q196 (14 i 8) preserves of 6:16, the phrase ‫הלא תדכר‬ [‫ לפק[ודי אבוך די פקדך‬and 4Q197 4 ii 13, ‫די פקדך‬.691 Similarly, Neubauer’s Aramaic reads ‫ לית את דכיר תפקדתא דאבוך דפקדך‬for the initial statement of 6:16.692 Hebrew form ‫( מצוך‬piel participle ms+suff. 2ms) in MT repeatedly used in Deuteron-

687 See Tob 2:2; 3:3; 4:5.19; 8:2; 12:12; 14:7. 688 See Di Lella, “The Deuteronomic Background”, 385; See also Macatangay, “Acts of Charity”, 75–80. 689 See G. Schrenk, “ἐντέλλομαι, ἐντολή,” TDNT II, 544–556, 545–546; HATIS 42. The verb occurs in Tobit, besides 6:16, in 1:8; 5:1 and 14:3.8. 690 See WGS, 111.196–197. 691 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 216. 692 See WGS, 197.

3.6 “Don’t You Remember Your Father’s Commands?” (Tob 6:16–18j) 

 239

omy, is rendered in the Targumim with Aramaic diction ‫מפקיד‬, witnessing the equivalence of Hebrew ‫ צוה‬with Aramaic ‫פקד‬. More important than linguistic equivalences, is the fact that OT’s use of such type of vocabulary refers mostly to the demands of the Torah, aspect that is highlighted, although negatively, twice in Tobit’s prayer of chapter 3.693 In light of that evidence, it is striking that Tobit would use the term “command(ment)” (Greek ἐντολή; Hebrew ‫ ;מצוה‬Qumran Aramaic ‫פקוד‬694; Targ. Aramaic ‫ )תפקידתא‬to its teachings, especially regarding those that find no positive formulation in our present Pentateuch (as in the case of endogamy). Furthermore, enlightening for the sense of Tob 4:19 and consequently also of Tob 6:16, appear two key texts from Deuteronomy, meaning Deut 4:1–8 and 6:1–6. The linguistic and ideological points of contact are undeniable. Tob 4:19 (καὶ νῦν παιδίον μνημόνευε τὰς ἐντολὰς ταύτας καὶ μὴ ἐξαλειφθήτωσαν ἐκ τῆς καρδίας σου) in effect appears to be a paraphrase of Deut 4:9 (μὴ ἐπιλάθῃ πάντας τοὺς λόγους οὓς ἑωράκασιν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί σου καὶ μὴ ἀποστήτωσαν ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας σου πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς σου καὶ συμβιβάσεις τοὺς υἱούς σου καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν υἱῶν σου) and 6:6 (LXX: καὶ ἔσται τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα ὅσα ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαί σοι σήμερον ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου).695 Around such intertextual connection, the narrator articulates an artful process. In effect, having enhanced Tobiah’s filial piety in the previous verses, the angel then evokes Tobit’s authority with his words of chapter 4, in 6:16. Such diction on its turn echoes key words from Deut 4 and 6 and thus from the Torah. That evocation seems to serve also reviving in Tobiah his words of filial submission and devotion in reply to his father teachings of Tob 4, in 5:1, which use a similar wording (πάντα ὅσα ἐντέταλσαί μοι ποιήσω πάτερ). The angel’s articulation of those ideas, expects to find then a fertile soil in the lad, soil prepared by his rhetorical articulation in the previous verses, to yield the expected result (v.16d: “do not be afraid of this demon but accept to marry Sarah”; μὴ λόγον ἔχε τοῦ δαιμονίου τούτου καὶ λαβέ). Last, although the angel uses the term “commandment” in plural, his insistence, coherently with the narrative moment, falls only in the endogamous teaching of 4:12–13, part of the πάντα ὅσα

693 καὶ παρήκουσα τῶν ἐντολῶν σου (3:4); οὐκ ἐποιήσαμεν τὰς ἐντολάς σου (3:5) 694 See Beyer, ATTM I , 670. 695 19A similar rhetorical articulation is detectable in Tob 14:8/9–11, where interestingly, not only wisdom and Torah are blended through Deuteronomic language, but as noted before, also prophecy. With respect to the articulation of wisdom and Torah in Deut 4:5–8, see the interesting article of G. Braulik, “Weisheit, Gottesnähe und Gesetz. Zum Kerygma von Deuteronomium 4,5–8”, Studien zum Pentateuch. Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag (Hrsg. G. Braulik) (Wien – Freiburg – Basel 1977) 165–196.

240 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

ἐντέταλσαί μοι Tobiah promised his father to fulfill. And he will, as the narrative will show.

3.6.3 Μὴ λόγον ἔχε /μὴ φοβοʋ˜ (vv.16d.18d.18j) Continuing the same process mentioned in the previous paragraph, we may notice that Raphael’s encouraging words to Tobiah in vv.16d.18i, once more use Tobit’s vocabulary. Its use in Tob 5:21 (in fact double) as Tobit’s encouragement to lamenting Hannah, repeated with the same function in 10:6, forms an inclusion that envelops the angel’s double use in Tob 6. Whereas Azariah’s words to not be afraid of v.18d (μὴ φοβοῦ) appears to be typical Bible formulaic expression of theophanies and angelophanies (see Gen 15:1; 26:24; 28:13; Num 21:34; Judg 6:22–23; Josh 8:1; 11:6; 2 Kgs 1:15; Mt 1:20; Lk 2:10)696 the construction μὴ λόγον ἔχε (“do not worry”), is unique to Tobit. Noteworthy, in Tob 5:21, Tobit uses the expression μὴ φοβοῦ paired with μὴ λόγον ἔχε, which could be an evocation of those of Judges 6:23. “Do not worry” in Tob 5:21; 6:16d.18i then could be interpreted as equivalent to εἰρήνη σοι of Judg 6:23 LXX. Azariah’s invitation to not fear, Tobiah himself heard from his father’s lips in his teaching of Tob 4:21.

3.6.4 Further Specifications Regarding the Fish’s Heart & Liver (v.17b) Through the first temporal proposition (v.17b), Azariah makes manifests fully the sense of his attempted-to-be-vague explanation regarding the fish’s heart & liver in 6:8. In it, their usefulness regarded specifically, not only a woman, but Raguel’s daughter Sarah. In that regard, ulterior details regarding the apotropaic “ritual” to drive away the demon are added. We may first notice that Raphael’s instructions now regarding the use of the fish’s heart and liver varies slightly from what stated previously. In 6:8, coherent with the generic feature of the statements, the angel simply inform of the apotropaic effect of burning the fish’s heart & liver regarding a person vexed by a demon, in 6:17b, the instruction is detailed: Tobiah is to take “from the fish’s liver and the heart” (λαβὲ ἐκ τοῦ ἥπατος τοῦ ἰχθύος καὶ τὴν καρδίαν), place ἐπὶ τὴν τέφραν τῶν θυμιαμάτων in

696 Those words of encouragement are also used by important OT heroes like Moses (for instance in Deut 1:21); Jonathan (1 Sam 23:17); David (1 Sam 22:23; 2 Sam 2:9. See Moore, Tobit, 207; Di Lella, “The Book of Tobit and the Book of Judges”, 204–205.

3.6 “Don’t You Remember Your Father’s Commands?” (Tob 6:16–18j) 

 241

order that “scent /smell /odor” (ὀσμή) may come out.697 OL majority text instead instructs simply to “take the liver and the heart of that fish” (tolle iecor et cor piscis illius), which could be simply a harmonization with 6:8. In GI the angel instructs instead to “put some of the fish’s heart and liver” (ἐπιθήσεις ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας καὶ τοῦ ἥπατος τοῦ ἰχθύος) upon the hot ashes. 4Q196 14 i 11 preserves the reading “[t]ake from the heart of [the fish],”698 which supports GI against GII. Perhaps having in mind the size of a fish’s heart (which even from a “big” fish would be rather small) the translator of GII thought more coherent having the whole of the fish’s heart to be burned instead of only a part of it; perhaps the case change in the Greek was merely on behalf of the copyist of GII. Considering the narrative situation (newly weds about to consummate marriage) the main idea the author seems intending to convey in any case appears to be that merely part of the (rotten?) fish’s organs be burned so that the bad smelling would not last too long but only enough for the demon to “inhale” it and flee (καὶ ὀσφρανθήσεται τὸ δαιμόνιον καὶ φεύξεται).699 Considering that the textual evidence as it appears also with Q (4Q196 [14 i 11] in fact seems to transmit this reading for v.18a: “[and] the demon will [sme]ll (it) and will [flee]” /[‫)]וירי[ח שׁדא וי]ערק‬700 insist in the idea of “smelling” more than that of “smoke” supports that view. In any case, textual oscillation regarding the fish’s organs does not seem to affect the sense of the instruction.

697 GII’s statement in that regard, although rendered with coordination καί simply, appears to constitute a purpose clause. 698 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 217. 699 Verb ὀσφραίνομαι means “to catch scent of, to inhale smell of.” See LS, 1264; GELS, 510. In Gen 8:21 it is said that having smelled (ὠσφράνθη /‫ )וירח‬the sweet odor of Noah’s sacrifice, the LORD promised never more to punish creation for man’s sins; Gen 27:27 uses the same verb to refer Isaac’s smelling of Jacob’s clothes; the false god are not able either of hearing, eating or smelling (μὴ ὀσφρανθῶσιν), according to Deut 4:28 /Ps 115:6 (LXX 113:14). Verb ὀσφραίνομαι therefore is used to describe a physical process which on its turn manifest the vitality of an entity. The idea of “smelling” regarding God appears mostly in the Pentateuch as noted before as part of the vocabulary of the sacrifices. According to the sacrificial legislation, as it appears, what turns a sacrifice a “sweetsmelling to the LORD (i.e. pleasing to him) is not the matter of it in itself, but their being fulfilled according to God’s prescription in the Torah (thus it being expression of obedience). In Tob 8:3 the narrator states that “the odor of the fish repulsed the demon” (καὶ ἡ ὀσμὴ τοῦ ἰχθύος ἐκώλυσεν [τὸ δαιμόνιον]). Considering Tobiah’s exact fulfilment of the angel’s words, perhaps that which drove away the demon is affirmed by the author to be Tobiah’s “obedience” behind the idea of “odor of the fish.” 700 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 217.

242 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

3.6.4.1 Sense of the phrase τέφρα(ν) τῶν θυμιαμάτων Furthermore, according to the angel’s words, Tobiah is to place the fish’s organs ἐπὶ τὴν τέφραν τῶν θυμιαμάτων, literally, “upon the ashes of the incenses.” OL translator rendered the phrase, et pone super carbones. Another OL MS transmits the phrase, et inponens super carbones candentes subfuma cubiculum tuum (“and placing [the fish’s organs]), which appears to be more an interpretation than a translation.701 Di Lella for the NAB translates the expression “on the embers intended for incense” similarly for the NRSV (“on the embers of the incense”). In a similar manner, most commentators.702 Although with some hesitation, Priero translated the expression τέφραν τῶν θυμιαμάτων as “porta-brace per incenso” (“brazier for incense”), understanding by that, “un piccolo utensile a paletta, destinato a raccogliere brace, su cui spargere incenso o altra sostanza odorosa («brucia-incenso»).”703 His descriptions is perhaps a bit imaginative, since no evidence is brought to justify such explanation. The main problem with such translations in our view, is that the Greek term τέφρα, does not mean “embers” or ”coal” but in any case the result of their consumption.704 In that sense, both Zimmermann’s (“place them upon the ashes of the incense”) and Dancy’s translation (“put them on the smoking incense,” appears more accurate.705 Whereas most translators interpret τέφρα[ν] τῶν θυμιαμάτων as an object or even as meaning the combustive matter itself, Zimmermann and Dancy’s translation emphasizes the process that would be going on in the marital chamber: incense had been burned to perfume the room,706 upon whose hot ashes some of the fish’s organs are to be placed enough time for the demon to smell the vile odour that would come out. Such suggestion seems coherent with the text’s emphasis on the aspect of “smelling” mentioned before. It would also deemphasize the magical aspect of the ritual, mentioned swiftly in 8:1–2, while emphasizing the spouses’ prayer for mercy, which receive a notably greater importance (see 8:5–8). As noted by Fitzmyer, Neubauer’s Aramaic transmits uniquely the direction of smoking “some of it under her garment” (‫ )ואקטר מיניה תהות לבושׁה‬and similarly one of the Hebrew versions.707 Moore following Zimmermann’s suggestion refers a

701 See WGS, 198–199. 702 See Moore, Tobit, 196; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 202. 703 See Priero, Tobia, 103. 704 See LS, 1784; GELS, 677. 705 See Zimmermann, Book of Tobit, 85; Dancy, Shorter Books of the Apocrypha, 38. 706 Moore alludes in that regard to fumigation in the interest of beautification alluding to Esther 2:12. See discussion in Moore, Tobit, 236. 707 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 217; Moore, Tobit, 236.

3.6 “Don’t You Remember Your Father’s Commands?” (Tob 6:16–18j) 

 243

Talmud passage which seems to refer a similar idea. Although Rabbinic tradition could be aware with such procedure,708 such evidence would only explain the origin of the Medieval Aramaic and Hebrew readings. It would be rather difficult not to say impossible to argue for the originality of such reading, as insinuated by Zimmermann.709

3.6.5 Kαὶ οὐκέτι μὴ φανῇ περὶ αὐτὴν (v.18b) In the angel’s next statement, noteworthy is the use of verb φαίνω in GII. The interest in that detail regards both the nature of Sarah’s demonic vexation and the death process of her previous suitors, considering the “visual” aspect implied in verb φαίνω (“to show forth, to shine”; of persons, “to appear, to be seen;” of events, “to come about”; in Greek philosophy, “to appear to the senses”)710 OL translator seems to have grasped exactly that aspect in his rendering of 6:18b (et non apparebit circa illam omnino in perpetuum). GI for its part, although following close the reading of GII for the rest of the elements, turns the narrative description vaguer using verb ἐπανέρχομαι, “to return, to come or go back” (καὶ οὐκ ἐπανελεύσεται τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος) instead of φαίνω. GII idea of “appearing” or “being made visible” regarding the demon is complemented by the use of preposition περί, which most English translators render as “near.” In that regard, Zimmermann’s rendering of περί with“to” (“and never appear any more to her”) does not appear accurate.711 The basic idea preposition περί conveys is that of “around, about.” Considering that the demon would appear “near, around” Sarah in the very moment of marriage consummation, and thus presumably also to the spouse, perhaps suggests, not without irony and with a bit of humor, that Sarah’s previous suitors in fact, died of heart attack by the demon’s “haunting”!

3.6.6 Μεμερισμένη πρὸ τοʋ˜ αἰῶνος (v.18f) Raphael’s expression of encouragement to Tobiah in v.18e (μὴ φοβοῦ) is motivated by the γάρ clause of v.18f. According to it, the main reason for which Tobiah should not fear is that Sarah “had been destined for him before the world 708 See Shab. 110a; Moore, Tobit, 236. 709 “This may be original or a variant in the story.” See Zimmermann, Book of Tobit, 85. 710 See LS, 1912. 711 See Zimmermann, Book of Tobit, 85.

244 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

existed.” Would the understatement of that phrase be that all “matches” are made in Heaven? Is the author affirming a Jewish belief (of his time) of universal value? The passive construction of v.18f, supported by 4Q197 (4 ii 17) is of particular significance. Coming from an angel’s mouth, one who has access to the heavenly court (recall 12:12), such passive finally transfers the authorship of such “predestination” to the “Lord of Heaven” (recall also 3:16–17). Such idea is underscored with the references to eternity, or to the “time before time” and “salvation” of v.18g. The angel’s complement that “she will come/go with you” of v.18h, although redundant at first glance, seems to reinforce the idea of v.18f that Sarah will accept marrying Tobiah. The angel’s words to Tobiah in v.18f in fact affirms the idea of a heavenly made “match” for Tobiah and Sarah, who is said to have been predestined as wife for him (recall 6:13e; see also 7:11).712 Alonso Schökel sustained that the idea of a spouse destined from eternity would constitute a novelty in biblical literature and that the author did not intend to affirm an universal doctrine,713 that last idea is also defended by Miller.714 Nickelsburg and Bow interpreted the idea of a heavenly matchmaking as suggesting “a belief in a provident God who arranges matters in human affairs, and indeed this theme underlies the entire book.”715 Fitzmyer for his part held the opinion that, nowhere in the OT the idea of marriage determined aforetime by heaven would be so clearly affirmed as in Tobit.716 Tobit’s idea in that regard in fact seems already present in Gen 24’s statements regarding God’s role in Isaac’s marriage with Rebekah (recall Gen 24:3.7.12.14.50.51).717 Mazzinghi on the contrary, considers that the idea of Sarah destined for Tobiah “from eternity,” is perhaps the most important idea on marriage that Tobit’s author would be affirming. For him (Tobit’s author), the union between a man and a woman is not accidental but the fulfillment of a divine project which comes from eternity.718 Nicklas for his part seems to interpret the idea of “match made in heaven” as an statement on the indissolubility of marriage bond.719 For Fröhlich, the rationale for the idea of predestined spouses, is Tobit’s statement on endogamy in connection with 712 See Moore, Tobit, 207–209; Miller, Marriage in the Book of Tobit, 132–159. 713 See Alonso Schökel, – Iglesias González, Tobías, 72. 714 In his opinion, “the Book of Tobit does not imply that all marriages are made in heaven,” but that God intervenes in particular cases for the good of the community. See Miller, “A Match Made in Heaven?”, 130. 715 See Bow, – Nickelsburg, “Patriarchy With a Twist: Men and Women in Tobit”, 56. 716 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 218. 717 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 218–219. See also; Moore, Tobit, 208; Miller, “A Match Made in Heaven?”, 130–135.147–150; Wénin, “Marriage de Tobias”, 173–174. 718 See L. Mazzinghi, Tobia : Il cammino della coppia (Spiritualità Biblica; Magnano, BI 2004) 99. 719 See Nicklas, “Marriage in the Book of Tobit: A Synoptic Approach”, 152.

3.6 “Don’t You Remember Your Father’s Commands?” (Tob 6:16–18j) 

 245

the Adam and Eve.720 In our view, from the immediate context, the narrator’s understatement in the angel’s phrase about Sarah’s “predestination” appears to be the belief of God’s involvement in human “match-making.” In that, as regarding other issues of the book, Tobit’s author seems to be “broadcasting” a belief from his Diaspora circle to his Diaspora audience. Considering the social significance of endogamy, specially for Diaspora circles, such religious understatement emerges as part of the narrator’s rhetorical strategy to strengthen his appeal in that regard.

3.6.7 “Children Like Brothers” (v.18i) In 1:9, Tobit (character) states to have taken wife from among the descendants of his paternal house, from whom he begot a son. In v.18i the second person singular pronoun σοι repeated twice in the phrase, insists to Tobiah that from him and not from anyone else there will be children to Sarah, thus complementing the idea of her being “destined, apportioned” to him of v.18f. Noteworthy, in vv.16–18j, 2ms pronoun is repeated nine times. Such dynamics of repetition, typical feature of Tobit’s narrative rhetoric, serves the angel to continue his appeal to Tobiah’s conscience and willpower, towards a free and matured decision of accepting the divine planned marriage with Sarah. Furthermore, such dynamics of repetition appear also part of the “dynamics of maturation” regarding Tobiah, that is taking place in chapter 6. In that regard, it is also interesting to note the angel’s statement regarding “children (notice the plural) like brothers.” Both Tobiah and Sarah, only-begotten children of their parents, idea twice repeated in the sequence (recall vv.12a.15b), are announced to beget children (offspring being a typical biblical expression of divine blessing). GII does not state how many children Tobiah and Sarah would beget. By the time of Tobit’s death, it is stated them to have already more than one (see 14:3). OL tradition and the Vg refer to seven children in 14:3.721 In GI tradition, MSS A and 98 (and the Sahidic) read six sons. 4Q196 18:15–16 a final taw is preserved, which DJD restored as ‫שׁבע[ת‬, “seven.”722 Beyer however, restored the text as ‫שׁת[ת‬, “six.”723 Considering the massive support of Qumran texts to OL readings, perhaps the number “seven” should in any case be preferred.

720 See Fröhlich, “Creation”, 46. 721 See WGS, 318. 722 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 324–325. 723 See Beyer, ATTM II , 185.

246 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

The sense of the angel’s statement “children like brothers” is discussed. GI omits such idea. Zimmermann proposed via a hypothetic Hebrew original, that the original reading would have been, “they will be to me like brothers,” brother to Raphael who then would be affirming to become Tobiah’s children’s protector.724 “An ingenious suggestion, but hardly convincing.”725 Alonso Schökel for his part interprets the expression as meaning that the children shall be most dear to him.726 Vílchez Líndez interprets it in the same line, stating that a horizon of hope and tender family life is affirmed, where parents and children would love themselves like brothers.727 Skemp proposed that “the repetition of ἀδελφός and its stem ἀδελφ- is used to sound the broad theme of kinship that runs throughout the book, particularly in the first eight chapters. (...) By repeating ἀδελφός, the Tobit narrative conveys meaning, viz., the importance of kinship within Judaism regarding social justice and marriage. (...) In total ἀδελφός occurs 60 times in GII.”728 Strangely enough, Skemp’s lengthy study on Tobit’s use of the term ἀδελφός, does not discuss the angel’s expression in v.18i, mentioning it only en passant.729 In our view, the angel’s statement of “children like brothers” is to be interpreted first of all in relation to the immediate context (Tob 6). In it, the use of the appellative “brother” characterizes the relationship established between Tobiah and Azariah during the travel as one of trust, openness to instructive help, sincere dialogue, compelling advice. Moreover, such appellative for Tobiah is synonym also of being mindful of God (Tob 2:2), companion and trustworthy (5:3), faithful to the Law (5:14), according to his father’s very words. In that light, Raphael’s statement of children like “brothers,” serving to evoke precious features of “brotherhood” already instilled in Tobiah by Tobit, serves also to intensify the angel’s appeal to the lad. 3.6.8 The Angel’s Emphasis on Endogamy “Since identity is maintained through kinship ties and not the land, Tobit emphasizes endogamy.”730 The preaching against intermarriage is repeated in various text 724 See Zimmermann, Book of Tobit, 86. 725 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 218. 726 See Alonso Schökel, – Iglesias González, Tobías, 72. 727 See Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 133. 728 See Skemp, “Kinship”, 92–93. 729 See Skemp, “Kinship”, 100. 730 See A.-J. Levine, “Redrawing the Boundaries : A New Look at ”Diaspora as Metaphor  – Bodies and Boundaries in the Book of Tobit””, Tobit and Judith. The Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series) (ed. A. Brenner-Idan  – H. Efthimiadis-Keith) (London-New York

3.6 “Don’t You Remember Your Father’s Commands?” (Tob 6:16–18j) 

 247

of the OT and as it is known was a dominant issue with respect to the exile returnees in STP, in fact a priority of Ezra’s reforms.731 “Prohibition of intermarriage with foreign women is ubiquitous in Second Temple Judaism.”732 Although no explicit command in that regard is found in the Torah,733 Soll stressed above all “the degree of close kinship advocated in the prospective wife, which is much closer than what is mandated by biblical or rabbinic law,”734 as what turns the argument so peculiar in Tobit. Interesting is also the fact that Tobit’s motivation for such practice takes distance from the biblical (Deuteronomic) motivation of danger of idolatry (as enjoined for instance in Deut 7:3–4; 1 Kgs 11:1–13; Neh 13:25–26). Rather, its rationale is given in Tob 4:12 (patriarchal example). The book emphasizes such teaching through Tobit’s example (recall 1:8) and above all enacts it through the story of Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah. Considering the importance of Tob 8:4–8 for the sense of endogamy, marriage and sexuality in Tobit, Tobiah’s evocation of God’s original design in the tradition of the first progenitors and his statement of receiving Sarah “not out of lust but in truth,” may be seen as suggested by Fröhlich a “representation of the first human couple” and the original created order for marriage.735 According to her “the ideal endogamic couple are Adam and Eve” and that “the novel serves for proving the divine origin of endogamous marriage, created by God, modeled after the revelation of Adam and Eve.”736 While revealing his true identity in chapter 12, Raphael, as a real “teacher of wisdom,” imparts an important (last) instruction to Tobit and Tobiah and in them to the readers.737 Remarkably, in that instruction, the angel endorses Tobit’s main teachings two of which explicitly present in Tob 6: regarding almsgiving (explicitly in 12:8–10), burial of the dead (indirectly through his statements in 2015) 3–22, 8; M. Oeming, “Jewish Identity in the Eastern Diaspora in Light of the Book of Tobit”, Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period. Negotiating Identity in an International Context (O. Lipschitz – G. N. Knoppers – M. Oeming) (Winona Lake, Ind 2011) 545–561, 554–557. 731 Recall Ezra 9–10. See C. Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources”, The Harvard Theological Review 92.1 (1999) 3–36; C. Frevel, ed. Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 547; London 2012) 732 See Collins, “Judaism”, 30. 733 “The specific form of endogamy envisioned and dramatized in Tobit, finds no precise legal backing from the received shape of the book of Moses.” See Macatangay, “The Wisdom Discourse of Tobit”, 102. 734 See Soll, “Family as Scriptural and Social Construct”, 170. 735 See Fröhlich, “Wisdom”, 250. 736 See Fröhlich, “Creation”, 42–46. A similar view is held by Griffin and accepted by Miller. See Griffin, Theology and Function of Prayer, 178; Miller, “A Match Made in Heaven?”, 139. 737 See Tob 12:6–20; Ego, “The Figure of the Angel Raphael According to his Farewell Address in Tob 12:6–20”, 251–252; Macatangay, Wisdom Instructions, 169–171.

248 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

12:12–13) and endogamy (while referring to the healing of Sarah “your daughterin-law” in 12:14, which evokes the essential part his speeches of chapter 6 played for Tobiah’s marriage with the girl and specially his decisive reminder of 6:16). Raphael commands Tobit to put into writing (γράψατε πάντα ταῦτα τὰ συμβάντα ὑμῖν, see 12:20) all that they experienced, as a means to proclaim the good works of God (see 12:6–7.11). If with its reference to the Law of Moses and to the patriarchs-prophets’ example, Tobit evoked qualified authority to its teachings, their ratification by Raphael, an angel with privileged access to the “presence” of God (see 12:15), the author claimed authority to his book’s teachings in an unimaginable high level.738

3.6.9 Raphael’s Invitation to Prayer (vv.18cd) Whereas the first temporal proposition detailed to Tobiah the exact procedure to be followed to drive away the demon, the second (vv.18cd) introduces an important (new) element for the dynamics and sense of that ritual: prayer. As regarding the use of the fish’s heart & liver, similarly Azariah gives detailed instructions regarding the newlyweds’ prayer: its time (before intimacy); posture (standing); modality (both spouses together); expression (intense supplication); and purpose (request for mercy and salvation). God’s mercy shall be again and again celebrated as cause of the healings of both Sarah and later, also of Tobit (see 8:16–17; 11:7). Azariah’s invitation to prayer constitutes another interesting play with spatial coordinates on behalf of the narrator. If the smoky ritual produces a centrifugal effect (the demon’s flight), prayer shall bring to the newlyweds special benefits from the “Lord of Heaven” (mercy and salvation) a centripetal effect, so to speak. With respect to the theme of salvation, evoked again in v.18g, noteworthy is the angel’s striking statement “you shall save her,” referring to Tobiah’s delivering action regarding Sarah. In that light, the angel’s next statement, “and she shall go/come with you” appears to be a reassurance of the effectiveness of that whole process. Moreover, it is striking that to Tobiah it is transferred the agency of most of Sarah’s deliverance in the angel’s instead: besides instructing, Raphael’s action regarding Sarah’s healing sums up in binding the demon in Egypt.

738 On the mediation of revelation during Second Temple Period, see A. P. Passen, Mediating the Divine. Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism (Diss. New York University; New York 2006) 582–615.

3.6 “Don’t You Remember Your Father’s Commands?” (Tob 6:16–18j) 

 249

Some authors consider that there would be no connection between the apotropaic ritual and the (invitation to) prayer.739 In our view however the angel connects the two instructions as two moments of one and the same ritual for Sarah’s deliverance from the demon,740 for these reasons. First, from a grammatical point of view, in GII, the statement regarding the use of the fish’s heart and liver and the invitation to prayer are expressed through a temporal clause introduced by the same temporal conjunction ὅταν. The first ὅταν clause instructs about the action to be taken immediately at entering Sarah’s room (v.17a) and the second, right before getting together with her (v.18cd). As Tobiah explicitly states in v.14, the demon’s killing action repeatedly took place precisely in the moment Sarah’s previous suitors approached her with intent of intercourse. Second, the idea of salvation as constituent of the spouses’ prayer also links the two moments. They are to pray so that God having mercy on them, delivers both of them from the killing demon. The “external” sign of Sarah’s definitive deliverance from the demon being the newlyweds consummation of marriage. Thirdly, the account of enactment of such narrative programme in Tob 8:2–8, although recounted successively (demand of any written text), suggests a concomitance between Raphael’s binding of Asmodeus in Egypt and Tobiah and Sarah’s prayer. In effect, as stated before, neither Tobiah nor Sarah become aware of Asmodeus’s binding. Through a parallel scene technique, similar to that of 3:17 (last sentence), the narrator recounts what takes place at Sarah’s room and in the invisible or spiritual world: as Tobiah burns the fish’s organs, Asmodeus flees; while the newlyweds pray, Raphael binds the demon in Egypt. From the point of view of narrative tempo, the slow down that Tobiah’s prayer effects in the narrating time, not only emphasizes the significance of such religious action, but in effect seems to help cohering the narrated time needed for the angel to perform his task, swiftly recounted in Tob 8 (merely through v.3). Furthermore, Tobiah and Sarah’s prayer for mercy and salvation, loaded with expectation, emotion and human uncertainty, serves to affirm the effectiveness of the apotropaic ritual in connection to God, purifying it from its supposed magical features. In fact, the definitive driving away of the demon, takes place thanks to the angel’s instruction regarding the use of the fish’s heart and liver and Raphael’s pursuit of Asmodeus and its binding in Egypt, action of supernatural order, both events connected to the Divine.

739 See for instance Ego, “Die Vertreibung des Dämons Admodäeus. “Magie” in der Tobiterzählung”, 402. 740 Fröhlich also holds the same view. See Fröhlich, “‘Because He Loves Her...’ The Figure of the Demon in the Book of Tobit”, 29.

250 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

The angel’s invitation to prayer, right before the newlyweds getting together as spouses, may also have another significance. While explaining the reader in Tob 3:8 that it was the wicked demon Asmodeus who had killed Sarah’s previous suitors, the narrator utters a peculiar statement. After declaring the killing of Sarah’s previous bridegrooms by Asmodeus, before they could be with her (πρὶν ἢ γενέσθαι αὐτοὺς μετ᾽ αὐτῆς), the narrator adds “as is the custom prescribed for wives” (καθάπερ ἀποδεδειγμένον ἐστὶν ταῖς γυναιξίν). The diction “to be with” plus the later annotation clearly refers to sexual activity. Therefore, the exercise of human sexuality, i.e. for a woman, “to be with man,” and a man, “to be with woman,” is affirmed to be an established order of things, order of creation established by God.741 Such order in Tobit is being prevented by a demon, who tries to violate the limits of his nature, lusting for a human woman without being able “to be with her.” Neubauer’s Aramaic text offers us an interesting interpretive insight in that regard, reading for that sentence of Tob 3:8, ‫ולא על עלה אינשׁ כאורח כל ארעא‬, “and no one came into her according to the way of all the earth.”742 Such reading seems to allude to what one of the Lot’s daughter says in Gen 19:31.743 In addition to that, in her prayer for death, Sarah affirms before God “to be innocent of any defilement with a man (lit. “of man”)” (καθαρά εἰμι ἀπὸ πάσης ἀκαθαρσίας ἀνδρὸς). Although not explicitly explained, from the context, the idea of “defilement with man,” appears clearly related to the theme of sexuality. A certain idea of legal impurity seems affirmed in the Torah even regarding ordinary sexual relations between husband and wife (see for instance Exod 19:15; Lev 15:18; 1 Sam 21:5). Leviticus expressly prohibits sexual intercourse with a woman in her menstrual cicle (see Lev 15:19–30).744 Thus, Sarah’s statement at first glance could appear “neutral,” i.e., not conveying any (negative) moral evaluation regarding human sexuality. Such idea however, the girl completes saying to have not besmirched, presumably because of that, her father’s name in the land of exile (see Tob 3:13–15). Interestingly, Raguel is Sarah’s motivation, not God’s commands for

741 See in that regard Fröhlich, “Wisdom”, 249–255. 742 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 150. 743 NAB: “The firstborn said to the younger: ”Our father is getting old, and there is not a man in the land to have intercourse with us as is the custom everywhere.” It may be recalled in that regard, that Genesis’ story of Sodoma and Gomorrah’s destruction (Gen 19) teaches divine punishment for sexual perversion. Ironically there, Lot’s daughters end up having intercourse with their very father, from whose incest, came to life Moab and Amon, continuous enemies of Israel. 744 See Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 92.

3.6 “Don’t You Remember Your Father’s Commands?” (Tob 6:16–18j) 

 251

her giving up the idea of hanging herself; the besmirching of her father’s name her primary concern and that regarding her morally correct sexual behavior. Or simply her sexual activity? According to some commentators, from a psychological point of view, Sarah manifests through her very words an unbalanced attachment to her father.745 Drewermann suggested Sarah’s resistance from sexual intercourse, due to her unbalanced attachment to her father, the psychological aspect of the figure of Asmodeus.746 According to (later) Testament of Solomon, Asmodeus in fact is presented as a demon that attempts against the integrity of the youth and is thus linked to the sphere of sexuality (see for instance Test. Sol. 5:7). According to the book of Tobit, Asmodeus’ intent of disrespect of divine established order, bring death to innocent humans. In that light, Raphael’s invitation to prayer, right before Sarah’s first intimate relationship with Tobiah, may be seen as a means of healing her innermost insecurities regarding human sexuality; it really serves to help dispelling not only the demon but also her demons related to human sexuality.747 Tobiah’s prayerful statement of being with Sarah not out of lust but in truth, i.e. according to the original divine established order (8:7) supports such views. As Mazzinghi states, for Tobit’s author Asmodeus has a real consistency but at same time becomes also a symbol of what menaces the positive value of human sexuality according to the divine creative order.748

3.6.10 Vulgate’s Unique Reading for Tob 6:16–18 In comparison to that of GII and other witnesses,Vulgate’s reading for Tob 6:16–18 appears rather peculiar.749 Table 3.16 below displays Jerome’s version with its English rendering750:

745 See in that regard G. D. Miller, “‘I am my father’s only daughter’: Sarah’s Unbalanced Relationship with Her Parents in the Book of Tobit”, Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ed. A. Passaro) (DCLY 2012/2013; 2012) 87–106. 746 See Drewermann, Der gefahrvolle Weg, 33–38.55–63. 747 Recall note 361 in that regard. 748 See Mazzinghi, Tobia, 69. 749 For a discussion in that regard, see Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 225–236; Priero, Tobia, 107; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 219–220; See also in that regard, Galdos, Tobit, 199–204. 750 Latin text and English rendering are taken from Fitzmyer, Tobit, 219–220.

252 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Table 3.16: Tob 6:16–18 (Vg 6:16–22). 16Tunc angelus Rafahel dixit ei, Audi me et ostendam tibi qui sunt quibus praevalere potest daemonium,

Then the angel Raphael said to him, “Listen to me, and I shall show you who they are over whom the demon can prevail.

17hii namque qui coniugium ita suscipiunt ut Deum a se sua mente excludant et suae libidini ita vacent, sicut equus et mulus in quibus non est intellectus, habet potestatem daemonium super eos.

For there are those who so enter marriage that in their minds they shut out God from themselves and give themselves over to their lust, as a horse or a mule that has no understanding; over those the demon has power.

18Tu autem cum acceperis eam, ingressus cubiculum per tres dies continens esto ab ea, et nihil aliud nisi orationibus vacabis cum ea.

But when you take her, go into the bridal chamber, and for three days keep yourself continent from her; occupy yourself with nothing else but prayers with her.

19Ipsa autem nocte incenso iecore piscis fugabitur daemonium;

That very night, burn the fish’s liver on the fire, and the demon will be put to flight.

20secunda vero nocte in copulatione sanctorum patriarcharum admitteris;

But on the second night you will be admitted to companionship with the holy patriarchs.

21tertia autem nocte benedictione consequeris On the third night, you will obtain a blessing ut filii ex vobis incolumes procreentur. that healthy children may be born to you both. 22Transacta autem tertia nocte accipies virginem cum timore Domini amore filiorum magis quam libidinis ductus ut in semine Abrahae benedictionem in filiis consequaris.

After the third night has passed, in the fear of the Lord you will take the virgin, moved rather for love of children than for lust, so that in the seed of Abraham you may obtain a blessing in children.

In comparison to GII, two main differences are noticeable in Jerome’s text: the omission of the reference to copula that occurs in Tobiah’s mouth in 6:14 and particularly Raphael’s invitation to continence for the first three nights after the marriage. Completely absent in all other extant available witnesses of Tobit, the singularity of Jerome’s text in fact constitutes particularly its moralizing expansion on the theme of human sexuality. Skemp noticed points of contact between Jerome’s ideas there, a section of his Contra Vigilantium and Philo’s The Special Laws, precisely regarding that theme.751 Paradoxically, in its peculiarity, the Vg

751 Ulterior interpolations occur in the Vg’s text for Tob 8 to harmonize the account of the marital night with its expansion of Tob 6. Coherent with its instructions of vv.16–22, the Vg also omits the phrase found in GII, in its own diction also in the OL regarding Tobiah and Sarah’s sleeping for the night of Tob 8:9 (καὶ ἐκοιμήθησαν τὴν νύκτα; Vg 8:11). Verb κοιμάομαι has the basic sense of “lying (down)” often with the purpose of “sleeping.” In most occurrences in the LXX, however, the verb occurs implying the idea of sexual intercourse, although in that case it is accompanied with preposition μετά, thus translating the typical Hebrew diction ‫ שׁכב עם‬with that very meaning.

3.6 “Don’t You Remember Your Father’s Commands?” (Tob 6:16–18j) 

 253

actually emphasizes the significance of the theme of sexuality in Tob 6. In that regard, Fitzmyer seems right in saying that, No {explicit} mention is made in any of the ancient versions that Tobiah and Sarah had intercourse. This may be the reason why Jerome introduced the idea of abstinence for three nights (Vg 8:4). However, the reader understands that they did have intercourse before they went to sleep. Neubauer’s Aramaic text mentions it explicitly: ‫ ;ועל לוותה בליליא הוא‬similarly HM752;

And Loader that, The distancing from sexual intimacy, through equating desire with animal lust, reducing the role of sexual intercourse primarily to procreation, and interposing three days of prayer and continence as though sexual intimacy and holiness stand in tension, does not cohere with the positive attitude towards sexuality reflected in the earlier form of the narrative.753

Jerome’s text for Tob 6:16–18 (Vg 6:16–22) appears to have been at the origin (together with other texts) of Early Christian Church’s customs, continued also during modern times, of continence in marriage for the first two or three days.754 Extraneous to a story that presents positive views regarding human sexuality, the simplest and most plausible explanation is that the Vg expansion came from Jerome’s pen.755

3.6.11 Women and Gender Roles in Tob 6 According to Bow and Nickelsburg, the entire Tobit story “is told from an androcentric point of view, the recipient of divine favor is the groom, not the bride, she is object, he is subject. Even heaven here regards Sarah as a commodity.”756 Feminist commentators of Tobit have also criticized such “androcentric” perspectives of the book. Schüngel- Straumann for instance, sustains that “sie (Sarah) is voll

Considering the whole process of chapter 6, in light of Tobiah’s words in 6:14, his words in the prayer of Tob 8 (see 8:7) and particularly the angel’s words in 6:18c (καὶ ὅταν μέλλῃς γίνεσθαι μετ᾽ αὐτῆς; NAB translation: “when you are about to have intercourse with her”, which Vg also omits), supported by GI, OL and Q, the intended sense of the expression of “sleeping for the night” appears to be that of continuing the natural process of a nuptial night. See Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 231.263–274; See also Mazzinghi, “‘Non per passione, ma con verità’”, 94–96. 752 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 246–247; See in that regard also, K. Harper, “Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm”, JBL 131/2 (2012) 363–383. 753 See Loader, Pseudepigrapha on Sexuality, 171. 754 See Moore, Tobit, 207.242–244; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 220; Durante, Sacra Storia, 28. 755 See Moore, Tobit, 206–207; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 220; For an overview on the Vulgate’s additions, see Skemp, Vulgate of Tobit, 272–274. 756 See Bow, – Nickelsburg, “Patriarchy With a Twist: Men and Women in Tobit”, 135.

254 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

und ganz Objekt, über das verfügt wird.”757 The fact that Raphael never speaks to a woman in the story, leads her to conclude that, in Tobit, “Frauen haben keinen Bezug zur himmlischen welt.” Her interpretation then is that women, “sind somit immer in der schlechteren Position, was den Durchblick angeht.”758 Levine for her part, while commenting on Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah, concludes ironically that, “Their marriage indicates the ideal gender roles for the future of Israel. Passive, dependent and silent, Sarah emerges as the perfect wife.”759 The ideas that the above mentioned authors criticize, regarding Sarah as “object” and “commodity,” which would illustrate Tobit’s androcentric point of view, strikingly reverberate precisely in the angel’s discourses of Tob 6. In effect, verbs referring to the ideas of “taking” and “inheriting” are repeatedly used by Azariah- Raphael with respect to Sarah (recall 6:12–13.16.18). In that articulation, only male figures, specifically father and future husband, but noteworthy also God, are subjects of the verbs. Consequently, from that point of view, the woman, in that case specifically Sarah, daughter and future bride, becomes the “object” of the dealings. Thus the girl is Raguel’s only child (6:11d–12a); because of Tobiah’s closest kin relationship to her, he is the one who has the “right to inherit her and her father’s estate” (6:12b). The future husband has the “right to take her” (6:13a.e); marriage with her is to be “negotiated” with her father (v.13c); after the return from Rages, “we” (male) shall celebrate her marriage (v.13d) and take her and conduct her with “us” to your house (v.13h). Levine considers Tobit’s views on sexuality as mostly negative, being it the domain of the demon and its focus on procreation highlighting merely the “functionality” of the woman.760 Regarding such views, Schöpflin wrote, “it is clear that the Book of Tobit is set in an environment that takes a patriarchal organization of social life for granted. Of course, this affects the roles and characterization of the females in the narrative. (..) Even if from a contemporary point of view – especially feminist – exegetes have taken offense with patriarchy, this cannot be a criterion within a historical interpretation of the book of Tobit.”761Miller rightly complements such statements saying that “although female characters of the OT are frequently undeveloped and eclipsed by their male counterparts, the Book of Tobit is unique in that «the minor female characters are more developed than in many biblical narratives.» Instead of leaving these women in the shadows, the narrator brings 757 See Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 140. 758 See Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 141. 759 See Levine, “Tobit”, 51; See also Hezser, Jewish Travel in Antiquity, 394–399. 760 See Levine, “Tobit”, 51; See also in that regard Quezada Del Río, “La situación de la mujer”, 166–180. 761 See Schöpflin, “Women’s Roles”, 173.

3.6 “Don’t You Remember Your Father’s Commands?” (Tob 6:16–18j) 

 255

them to life and fashions them with care.”762In our view, Tobit’s author, bound to the culture of his time and the customs of his people, patterned his thoughts on marriage, men and women’s roles and relationships, accordingly. Moreover, as discussed before, the angel’s language of “taking wife” with respect to marriage, reflects typical biblical diction, which the author imitates. Therefore, imposition of negative judgements on those values and views from our modern sensitivity, falls into anachronism. On the background of those accepted ancient views regarding women and women’s roles, the narrator’s presentation of Sarah in fact as person not function and so nicely described by God’s angel Raphael in 6:12d, constitutes indeed a significant development.

3.6.12 Final Remarks on Tob 6:11–18j “Repetition was an important means of emphasis for ancient authors. Great works of literature use repetition of key words and word-roots to draw the reader’s attention to significant components of the narrative, to sound a theme.”763Azariah’s discourse in Tob 6 seems to fit nicely in that description. In fact, as emerged throughout our considerations in this section, it is noteworthy the refined articulation that comes to surface from a closer consideration of the angel’s discourses. Within that “rhetoric of repetition,” inner hook-ups, concentric structures and chiastic disposition, serve to highlight the key ideas of an argumentation in crescendo; flash-backs and flashforwards through those key concepts (the author’s technique of anticipations), creating a remarkable psychological forcefulness, converge and interact to constitute Raphael’s appealing discourse. Behind such rhetoric, emerges the angel’s effort to elicit Tobiah’s free decision of adhering, according to a whole series of values and motivations, to the divine-established plan. Behind such effort, the narrator anticipates an entire narrative program that Tobiah, as the unexpected leading figure of the book, is called to fulfill, in order that the announced healings of Tob 3:16–17 become a reality. “El programa de actos, que propone Rafael a Tobías, es completo, razonable y factible. Ya veremos cómo se lleva a cabo con las pequeñas correcciones que impongan las circunstancias, como si se tratara del guión de una película.”764For such purpose, Tobiah’s maturation as character appears indispensable.

762 See Miller, “”I am my father’s only daughter””, 93 763 See Skemp, “Kinship”, 92 764 See Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 132

256 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

Commentary Gradually built in the first part of the angel’s discourse, the “obligation” of endogamy is explicitly evoked in v.16 and in a very precise manner: Tobit’s authority is brought in cause with reference to his sapiential-testamentary instructions (in this case particularly in 4:12–13). Noteworthy, from all of Tobit’s instructions in Tob 4, the angel only evokes that on endogamy (not without irony). Important to recall that before those instructions Tobiah had explicitly committed himself fully before his father (5:1). Azariah’s appeal, deep down to Tobiah’s intelligence, conscience and will (in biblical terms, “heart”), wrapped with psychological forcefulness and ironical twist, touches Tobiah’s most intimate values, related to his filial piety and reverence towards God. The second part of the Azariah’s speech (vv.16c–18j), then, appears to serve mostly to dissolve Tobiah’s fears and concerns before Azariah’s attractive marriage proposal he was already interested on (Tobiah’s reply in vv.14–15 among other things underscored it). The encounter with the big fish, prepared Tobiah for the encounter with the demon. However, Tobiah’s fear as noted before was motivated by his filial piety. Therefore the angel’s argumentation had to work at a different level. For the process of solving Tobiah’s fear, interact two elements expressed in the double ὅταν clauses: Azariah in a flash-forward describes in detail the process to be followed regarding the fish’s organs and assures their concrete effect upon the demon, to happen before Tobiah’s marital interaction with Sarah. For such result, the authority of the “LORD of heaven” is evoked through the, also detailed instruction, regarding prayer to be done before their getting together. Remarkably, prayer in Tobit, suggested for moments of grief and turmoil as in Tob 3, is enjoined also for the particular human circumstance of marriage consummation. In that respect, the angel’s reference to offspring, perhaps an echo to the divine precept of Gen 1:28, may be seen as Tobiah’s inspiration for his Genesis’ allusions in his prayer (8:6). With respect to man or woman who faces a demonic threatening (6:8), the narrator uses the idea of “fleeting” (φεύγω) completed with the idea of “never returning” (οὐ μὴ μείνωσιν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). The conjunction of those elements, emphasizes the idea of enduring separation, which is the same to say being completely “saved/ delivered” from. The idea of salvation is explicit affirmed by Raphael to Tobiah with respect to Sarah. Regarding Azariah, his suggestive discourse further underscores his specific role in the story: to rectify by means of encouraging guidance the characters’ innermost motivations and attitudes towards a free fulfillment of a divine orchestrated plan. The angel did his part. The result need only few words more to be revealed.

3.7 “And His Heart Clung to Her...” (Tob 6:18k–n) 

 257

3.7 “And His Heart Clung to Her...” (Tob 6:18k–n) Exegesis 3.7.1 Tob 6:18k–n in the Main Witnesses Verses 18k–n, convey four important ideas regarding Tobiah with respect to Raphael’s discourse: 1. the lad heeded in a special manner to Raphael’s words (v.18k) 2. specially that about Sarah being a kinswoman, from his paternal lineage (v.18l) 3. he fell in love with her intensely (v.18m) 4. and his heart clung to her (v.18n) GI basically agrees with GII, with small variations, the most significant ones being the use of verb φιλέω instead of ἀγαπάω; the term ψυχή instead of καρδία; adverb σφόδρα instead of λίαν, to convey the same idea of intensity. The reading of GII is supported substantially by 4Q197 (4 ii 19–4 iii) 765 and OL, except for the later’s omission of the adverb of intensity.766 According to all versions, it seems clear that in vv.18lmn, the narrator is particularly interested in highlighting that Raphael’s appeal to Tobit’s teaching on endogamy (and with it, to his authority and Tobiah’s piety) played a decisive part in the lad’s decision to marry Sarah. 3.7.2 Ἀδελφὴ ἐκ τοʋ˜ σπέρματος τοʋ˜ οἴκου τοʋ˜ πατρὸς αὐτοʋ˜ (v.18l) Sarah is mentioned as “sister” (ἀδελφή) in v.18l, clearly in the sense of “close relative.” Sarah however, is not simply a close relative of Tobiah, but (literally) from the “seed of his father’s house” (meaning, daughter of a close relative of Tobit that also belongs to the lineage of Naphtali’s descendants). Such statement seems emblematic regarding Tobit’s understanding of endogamy. As Mazzinghi stated, “L’endogamia, nel libro di Tobia, ha un senso molto stretto; il matrimonio è concepibile infatti solo all’interno della «stirpe del padre» (...).”767 The narrator’s narrow classification of Sarah is built upon the angel’s words on 765 ‫כדי שׁ[מע טוביה מלי רפא]ל די היא ל[ה אחא ומן ]בית זרע אבוהי שׁ[גיא רחמה ולבה >דבק< בה ]לחד[א‬. 766 Et cum audisset Thobias sermones Raphahel angeli quoniam soror est illius, et de domo seminis patris illius, haesit cordis eius. 767 See Mazzinghi, “‘Non per passione, ma con verità’”, 91.

258 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

vv.11c, 12b, 13e and16b, which heavily support the idea of the centrality of the argument of endogamy for Tobiah’s adhesion to the angel’s proposal of marriage with her. 3.7.3 Ἀγαπάω /κολλάω /καρδία (vv.18mn) The idea of Sarah being from his paternal lineage is sustained by the narrator to have produced two effects in Tobiah: he fell intensely in love with her and his heart clung to her. Not without irony, Tobiah’s falling deeply in love with Sarah is affirmed not by her the qualities the angel referred in v.12d, but by her kinship bond to him (thus out of piety more than lust). The use of verb ἀγαπάω in GII, perhaps suggests the translator’s conveyance of the idea of “love” there with a more “spiritualized” sense.768 Such verbal choice may be serving also to emphasize the book’s positive teaching on human sexuality, as Tobiah himself will state it, “in truth” (8:7), meaning in accordance with the divine established order. In that word choice, GII translator seems aligned with LXX’s translative preferences. As Klassen noted, “The LXX shows a decided preference for the Greek verb agapao and the noun agape in translating biblical Hebrew words for love.”769 Although it may convey an aspect of “pity, compassion,” in Hebrew as in Aramaic, ‫( רחם‬Aramaic adjacent in v.18m according to 4Q197 as noted before) seems to englobe all expressions of “love” also in its aspects of “wish, desire” (and thus also in its erotic dimension).770 As Fitzmyer commented, “according to normal biblical thinking personal feelings and reactions such as love and inclination are not expressed merely from a psychological perspective, but much more as they fit into the designs of the Creator.”771 Through the use of verb κολλάω in v.18n, literally “to glue together, unite” thus “to cling to, cleave to,”772 the narrator seems to allude to the divine precept regarding marriage of Gen 2:24. The idea of the “heart” (καρδία) seems also important. As it is known, in biblical tradition, the “heart” in a figurative sense, is not understood primarily as the seat of feeling and emotions, but of “thought” and therefore of discernment, conscience and will (i.e. to man’s innermost and higher faculties).773 Such mention therefore seems to support 768 See LS, 6; G. Quell, “ἀγαπάω, ἀγάπη, ἀγαπητός”, TDNT, I, 21–35. 769 See W. Klassen, “Love”, AYBD IV, 381. 770 See HALOT, II, 1981; Beyer, ATTM I , 693–694; Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 1467–1468. 771 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 221. 772 See LS, 972. 773 See F. Baumgärtel – J. Behm, καρδία, καρδιογνώστης, σκληροκαρδία, TDNT III, 605–614.

3.7 “And His Heart Clung to Her...” (Tob 6:18k–n) 

 259

the ideas referred above. At level of the Greek, a certain homophony is perceivable between verbs κολλάω of v.18n and κωλύω of v.13. The ideas they refer, in fact, are related by contrast (Raguel’s not able to hinder Sarah from Tobiah; Tobiah’s cleaving to her).

Commentary The narrator’s voice scantly audible after v.11a, becomes out loud again in vv.18kn. His intervention closes not only the discursive section of Tob 6, but in effect the travel section as a whole. Tobit 7:1 marks a new change of place with the company’s arrival to Ecbatana. Strikingly, the narrator’s conclusive statements regard Tobiah’s inner dispositions, his feelings about Azariah’s proposal and specially regarding Sarah (“inner focalization”). Through his annotations, the narrator skillfully “takes” the reader “inside” Tobiah, revealing him the effect of the angel’s words in his innermost self and that motivated by his piety, he became very much interested in her. The continuation of the narrative is expected to enact the detailed programme of Tob 6. Since Azariah took the floor and began speaking (6:11b), the narrating time and narrated time coincided. The most important effect of that process is that Tobiah and the reader grow in knowledge at the same time. For the narrator, it appears important therefore, that the reader in a sense puts himself in the position of Tobiah. In effect he hears the angel’s words in “real time” with Tobiah. The use of historical present in various moments of the speech also helps to produce that effect. Such process, however, is temporarily interrupted, when Tobiah presents his objections to Azariah (6:14–15). Tobiah’s intervention, becomes an ulterior occasion for his “self-characterization.” His words to Azariah in a sense are also words to the reader, who up to that moment was superior in knowledge regarding Tobiah. The reader is now surprised by the information that Tobiah possessed and he was unaware of. Such narrative articulation, part of the communicative dynamics of the text, serves also to keep the readers interest in the story. Raphael’s repeated invitation to Tobiah to heed to his words, in that light, becomes also a repeated invitation to the reader. Through the text’s dynamics of allusion, the reader is reminded of important moments and ideas of the narration (flashbacks), which serves to involve him more profoundly in the story’s ideological web. “Although it is God’s will that Tobiah marry Sarah, neither God nor the angel infringe on the free will of the characters involved. The angel’s mission is to get the two married, and he accomplishes this mission through persuasion and

260 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

guidance.”774 Tobiah in effect is solicited by the angel’s words in a profound and intense manner, but does not seem coerced. Raphael in his entreaty, emerges as a “master of rhetoric,” or perhaps of heavenly wisdom, coherent with the narrator’s characterization of him since his first appearance in the story (Tob 3/5). Up to chapter 6 in fact, the angel performs the task proper to him in light of biblical tradition, guiding and instructing; Tobiah for his part, that of active listening, questioning when needed and executing. Noteworthy is the inversion that occurs from the first lines of chapter 7 on, manifesting a notable improvement of Tobiah as character. In fact, as they reach Ecbatana, Tobiah requests brother Azariah to lead him immediately (εὐθεῖαν) to house of Raguel. And the narrator informs Azariah’s prompt execution of Tobiah’s request using once more the command-implementation pattern (see Tob 7:1). Tobiah appears in a hurry. In fact, after the delay of the emotive greeting of those of Raguel (father, mother and of course, Sarah, see 7:2–8), at table for supper, Tobiah whispers Azariah to speak with the father about his marriage with Sarah (7:9). Overhearing it, Raguel begins to address Tobiah directly (7:10). Azariah becomes opaque. From thereon, Tobiah assumes the command of the situation and becomes truly its protagonist.

3.8 Addendum: Tobiah’s Final Interaction with Raphael in Tob 11 Our study focused in the episode of Tobiah’s travel to Ecbatana, the travel account in the strict sense. After his marriage and its celebration, matured Tobiah travels back home with his wife and half of his father-in-law’s estate (see 10:10–13), his travel companion and of course, his dog. As they approach Nineveh, Raphael suggests Tobiah a moving ahead to prepare the way for Sarah’s arrival (11:3). The narrator then refers a brief interaction between Tobiah and his travel guide about Tobit’s healing (11:4.7-8). Tobiah and Raphael are said to walk “in the same pace” of that beneficial travel (“together”); the dog faithfully follows his master “from behind” (11:4). Completing our exegesis of Tobiah’s travel, some considerations on that new interaction between Tobiah and his human-angelic companion appear due.775 The narrator begins the sequence in his typical style of Tob 6, with a reference of place and no explicit reference of time. Tobiah’s long journey back to Nineveh in fact is recounted with the transition of one verse (11:1). The protagonists are referred to by name and not anymore through their appellatives of Tob 6. Raphael

774 See Miller, “A Match Made in Heaven?”, 147. 775 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 273–277.

3.8 Addendum: Tobiah’s Final Interaction with Raphael in Tob 11 

 261

refers himself to Sarah as “your wife” and Tobit, “your father.” Hannah emphasizes “the” Azariah that returns at Tobiah’s side by referring him as ὁ ἄνθρωπος (11:6). The angel’s second person address to Tobiah helps to keep the “spotlight” upon him. We may also notice a correspondence in Raphael’s words: his appeal to Tobiah’s knowledge in 11:2 (“you know”) is contrasted with his knowledge of 11:7 (“I know”). Whereas Tobiah knows how he left his father, Raphael reassures him Tobit’s sight recovery.776 Furthermore, the narrator’s referral of the home situation in 11:5–6 splits the dialogue between the travelers, creating suspense, intensifying the reader’s interest. The reader in fact is directed by the narrator from the road to Nineveh and back to the road. In the road he sees what the narrator sees; in Nineveh, what the mother sees. Tob 11:3.8 then are connected through the motif of the fish’s gall, which also links the sequence both to the fish’s incident and Tobiah’s dialogue about its organs in 6:3–9. Formally considered, a similar gradation in the communicative process is perceivable. In Tob 6, such gradation prepares in detail the process of Sarah’s healing that follows it: the angel affirms Tobiah the medicinal value of the fish’s organs (6:5b); then specifies their usefulness regarding the double situation of blindness (physical problem) and demonic vexation (spiritual); finally, during his lengthy conversation with Tobiah, Raphael explains him minutely how to use the fish’s heart and liver for Sarah’s deliverance from the demon (recall 6:17–18d). A similar process occurs in Tob 11 regarding Tobit’s healing: the angel first proposes a move ahead; then invites Tobiah to recall his father’s situation; then commands him to take the gall in his hand; finally, details its use. But, why was it necessary to reassure Tobiah the effectiveness of the fish’s gall to heal his father and specify its use? Sarah’s deliverance from the demon in Tob 8 comes about by Tobiah’s minute execution of all of the angel’s instructions. Mindful of Raphael’s words in Tob 6:16–18j, Tobiah enacts the instructed smoky ritual learned during the travel. Asmodeus is then driven away, bound “hands and feet” by Raphael in Egypt (recall 8:2–3). The newlyweds also pray asking for God’s mercy and salvation also according to the angel’s words (8:3–8). Important to remember that the success of Tobiah’s ritual is not known to him, but revealed only to the reader. Tobiah’s request in prayer that follows the fumigation in the account, is to be considered an integral component of the effectiveness of that ritual. Its anticipation by the narrator, is part of his recounting technique, for communicative purposes. Among other things it serves to underscore the reader the effectiveness of Tobiah’s exact 776 Although perhaps merely result of the translator’s work, noteworthy is the narrator’s change of the verb of knowledge in those sentences equally witnessed by GI and GII (v.2: γινώσκω/v.7: ἐπίσταμαι) perhaps to distinguish Tobiah’s knowledge from Raphael’s (clearly distinct in nature). See GELS, 132.281; R. Bultmann, “γινώσκω”, TDNT I, 689–719.

262 

 3 Exegesis of Tobit 6

fulfillment of the angel’s instructions. The reader’s superior knowledge regarding the characters, keeps his interest and active participation in the narrative. With respect to Tobit’s healing that is about to be enacted, a similar procedure is followed. In effect, while commenting on Tob 6:7–9, we highlighted the narrator’s silence about Tobiah’s reaction before Azariah-Raphael’s incredible revelation, particularly regarding the usefulness of the fish’s gall for healing blindness. The “gap” that is created there, besides keeping the narrator’s dialogue with the reader, invites him to speculate about Tobiah’s thoughts. A possible interpretation of that silence, in light of Tobit’s statement in 2:10 (about the ineffectiveness of human “medicines”) may be Tobiah’s disbelief of his companion’s statement. After all, Raphael for Tobiah is up to Tob 12 merely Azariah, a young men, a fellow Israelite hired as his travel companion and guide. Moreover, Tobiah had been witness of his father’s complete listlessness to Azariah’s assurance that his cure was near (5:10). What in fact would Azariah know about medicines and healing? Had he been a “doctor” he would not have been searching for hired work by the wage of a Greek mercenary or artisan (one drachma per day). In Tob 11, after the long travel to Ecbatana, the intense and unexpected circumstances he lived there and the fourteen days’ wedding celebration together with the equally long travel back to Nineveh, Raphael’s brief remarks regarding the fish’s gall during the outbound travel (6:9), may also realistically be thought momentaneously forgotten. Raphael then revives in Tobiah the remembrance of his father’s situation, and by instructing to take the gall in his hand, revives in him the road statement about its usefulness, regarding which, as in the case of Sarah’s “healing” he adds ulterior specifications. Noteworthy, in Tob 11 as in Tob 6, before Azariah’s words the narrator refers no reaction of Tobiah; only action (see 11:10–14). That was his answer already in the fish incident before his companion’s instructions (recall 6:4–6c) replica of his typical attitude before his father (recall 2:2–3; 5:1; 14:12–14). That is going to be also his answer now. Matured Tobiah did not become reluctant. Although unaware of his companion’s true identity, but perhaps already suspecting something, Tobiah now, mindful of Azariah’s words during the travel but also motivated by the still vivid experience of the effectiveness of the apotropaic ritual regarding his wife Sarah, follows minutely again, now with respect to his father, all of his companion’s instructions. Now as before, through the pattern at this point already familiar to us of command-implementation, the narrator in effect underscores that a dynamics of obedience is at stake in that whole process. Not mechanical but implying the person’s discernment and free will. A disposition that allows the faithful to participate in the LORD’s creative and instructive help (“Azariah”), whose acceptance will grant Tobit now to see again “Tobiah” (“the LORD is good”), the light of

3.8 Addendum: Tobiah’s Final Interaction with Raphael in Tob 11 

 263

his eyes (see 11:14). Raphael’s detailed restatement of the instructions regarding the gall serve the narrator above all to highlight that teaching. Up to Tob 6 Tobiah emerged as an obedient son following all of his father’s commands (recall 5:1). Matured Tobiah now exhorts his father: “Courage (do not be afraid) father!” (11:11). So the healing comes about through his hands.777 “And Tobiah told his father that his journey had been successful, that he had brought the money and that he had married Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, who was indeed on her way there, quite close to the gates of Nineveh” (11:15).

777 “Inserendo al centro del libro il cammino del figlio Tobia e la storia del suo matrimonio con Sara, il narratore mette in rilievo il fatto che Tobi esce dalla prova grazie anche alla maturità ormai raggiunta dal figlio, divenuto finalmente autonomo e adulto. Così l’esclamazione di Tobit, «ora i miei occhi vedono mio figlio» (cf. 11,14), acquista un grande valore simbolico. Recuperando la vista, Tobi ha ritrovato anche il suo vero ruolo di padre e ha compreso come in tutta la sua vicenda anche il dolore ha avuto un senso. Egli non è più un vivo tra i morti, ma un uomo nuovamente capace di speranza.” See Mazzinghi, “La sofferenza dell’anziano Tobi”, 92–93.

4 Poetics and Narrative Function of Tobit 6: Synthesis and Conclusions Tob 6, “is the chapter in which the real drama of the Book of Tobit is encountered; it involves Tobit’s son in all the different aspects of the story that are to be developed.”1 Our exegesis in the previous chapter, aimed mostly to understand the poetics of Tob 6, through which the narrator achieves his narrative goals. According to Aristotle, poetics fundamentally addresses the question about “the way in which plots must be constructed if the poem is to be a success.”2 In the following, as a mode of conclusion, the components “unearthed” in the exegesis and that constitute the poetics of Tob 6 are recalled and systematized; its narrative function within Tobit’s literary project, then, summarized.

4.1 Poetics of Tob 6 4.1.1 Story of a Journey The theme of “travel/journey” with its implied literary and thematic components, appears to constitute the Leitmotif of Tobit 6, in fact, of the book of Tobit as a whole.3 “The theme of the journey is undoubtedly a famous topos throughout literature, and an eternal symbol of human restlessness towards the search for what is missing, for what is awaited, what is unknown,” as Bellia nicely puts it.4 Rabenau’s proposal of seeing the book of Tobit as a Führungsgeschichte (a “story of guidance”) mentioned in chapter 2 characterizes sharply Tobit’s travel story.5 “The account of Tobiah’s journey is a narrative of a successful quest  – a well-known component of folktales and romances.”6 Repeatedly used Tob 4–11, Tobit’s use of the term “way” evokes the known biblical metaphor

1 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 203. 2 καὶ πῶς δεῖ συνίστασθαι τοὺς μύθους εἰ μέλλει καλῶς ἕξειν ἡ ποίησις. See Aristotle, Poetics, 1447a. 3 See Hezser, Jewish Travel in Antiquity, 199. 4 See Bellia, “From Tobit to Ben Sira”, 26. 5 We may recall that the basic rationale of such literary typology would be God “als die treibende und lenkende Kraft in der Geschichte,” whose exemplary characters, “erlebt seinen Lebensweg als von der Führung Gottes bestimmt. Er erlebt sie als Schutz und Segen, als Rettung und Treue, in denen sich das Mit-Sein Jahwes erweist.” See Rabenau, Studien, 100.104. 6 See Fröhlich, “Tobit against the Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 62. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110615074-006

266 

 4 Poetics and narrative function of Tobit 6: Synthesis and conclusions

regarding man’s path and behavior.7 The fact that Tobiah’s travel story appears construed particularly around the theme of the “way” also with that transposed meaning, strengthens the idea of its instructive or pedagogical dimension. “What is narrated in a historical romance is parable, allegory, metaphor which refers to something known, to a reality that is not distant or wholly foreign to the experience of the reader.”8 If the metaphor of the “way” conveys the sense of “behavior, choice, life style” that of “travel” underline the transient aspect of such process. A travel in fact is never a state of being but always a transition, from and to. Tobiah’s travel signifies for him a journey that goes beyond its spatial dimension. Tobiah’s words to his father after his healing in 11:15 is a wonderful summary of his “story of guidance,” which may also be seen under the category of healing. All achievements Tobiah celebrates there, came about by God’s mercy under the wise direction of His angel in disguise, in effect a sort of God’s alter ego. If mere organs of a fish are able to produce such a disproportionate effect in the story, a real reversal, it is finally due to God’s power, as silent and hidden true agent in it.9

4.1.2 A Pedagogical Story Tobit as a “romance-like wisdom instruction,” through its motif of “travel” and connected values, reveals a clear pedagogical intent. The “home” element of Tobiah’s travel story in its broad span (typical Sitz-im-Leben of Wisdom literature), together with the book’s incipit as “book of the words of Tobit” (“words” perhaps to be understood in the sense of “teaching”) and its explicit instruction-sections (Tob 4; 6; 12; 14) cooperate to imprint such dimension to the work. Being Tobiah particularly their focus, although presumably directed also to their overprotective parents, our author’s target audience appears to have been the generation of young exile Israelites, which Tobiah then would embody, living in a Hellenized and “Hellenizing” Diaspora. The attraction that Greek ideals were presumably exercising particularly upon that audience, may have motivated our author in his educational project. With a certain openness to his surrounding ideas and 7 “Especially in the prophetic, poetic, and wisdom books,” summarizes Hezser, “the word ‫דרך‬ is used in a metaphorical sense to denote the way of life, behavior, and practice of individuals groups.” See Hezser, Jewish Travel in Antiquity, 205. 8 See Bellia, “From Tobit to Ben Sira”, 17. 9 As shown in chapter 1, from a statistical point of view, “God” is the name that occurs the most in the narrative (52x). If with add to that the 29 occurrences of the divine name and/or appellative “Lord,” references to the divinity in the story amounts 81 times.

4.1 Poetics of Tob 6 

 267

values, Tobit’s author is able to construe an attractive didactic story, dressed with aventure-like features within a remarkably rich fictional world, while revisiting and re-proposing cherished traditional values in a creative manner. The purpose of Tobit “is to entertain and edify” but also “to construct Jewish identity in the circumstances of the Diaspora.”10

4.1.3 Shaped Upon Patriarchal Stories of Genesis Remarkably, Tob 6 in various manners evokes important patriarchal traditions found in our present book of Genesis mostly regarding Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Gen 22–29). The massive evidence presented in our exegesis suggests not simply such traditions as Tobit’s main source but the author’s dependence on several of their themes and motifs in the creation of his travel story.11 The patriarchal accounts appear to have been chosen or privileged, for being family stories, for the exemplary feature of its characters (evoked in Tob 4:12) and the foundational feature of its values, values which Tobit’s author seems to have been particularly fond in highlighting through his story. “The appeal to the collective memory, helps to reconstruct a common identity. Biblical heritage evoked serves as an example for lifestyle for the reader.”12

4.1.4 For Characters’ Construction As noted in chapter 2 of our study, it is remarkable the number of characters that the travel story includes in its recounting. Not only Tobiah, the angel, the dog, but soon the fish, the demon, Raguel and Sarah, Tobit and Hannah, Gabael and even God, that is to say Tobit’s central figures, find a mention in the episode. Noteworthy, most of them are characterized by the angel as the narrative unfolds; the narrator appears fond in characterizing himself Tobiah whereas the angel gets characterized by his very performance.

10 See Fröhlich, “Tobit against the Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 58. 11 Tobit in fact “contains numerous references to the foundational texts of Judaism by means of the adoption of theological theses or the reformulation of narrative themes, if not exactly by means of the mirroring of equivalent events.” See Bellia, “From Tobit to Ben Sira”, 3. What Bellia states regarding Tobit as a whole may properly be said of Tob 6 in particularly. 12 See Fröhlich, “Tobit against the Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 58.

268 

 4 Poetics and narrative function of Tobit 6: Synthesis and conclusions

4.1.4.1 The Lad Since the first lines of Tob 6, the narrator enucleates young Tobiah, by referring the other two “crew” members (meaning the angel and the dog) in relation to him (6:2a), underscoring his being the story’s focal point. The narrator’s referral of Tobiah as “the lad,” insists the reader the manner he (narrator) wants him to see Tobiah as the travel begins. Such characterization also serves to stress Tobiah’s “psychological” age or characterological statute more than his physical age, whatever was it thought by the author. In that regard we proposed Tobiah’s embodiment of Tobit’s main target audience (young exile Israelites) and thus Tobiah’s referral as “the lad” suggests also his (their) “state of apprentice.” By traveling side by side with an angel of God, although without knowing it, Tobiah is entering in a process of growth, through the episode’s threefold segments, as three performative stages towards his improved maturity. Tobiah is characterized as self-committed to travel guide just as Isaac in Gen 22, with an ambience of trust established between him and the angel. Moreover, Tobiah’s typical and exemplary attitude before his father (prompt obedience) is replicated with respect to Azariah-Raphael and also exploited by him for the effectiveness of his argumentative work. Tobiah’s dialogue with Raphael in 6:14–15 and the narrator’s conclusive remark in 6:18k-n, emphasize such motivations as Tobiah’s distinctive features. 4.1.4.2 The Angel As Tobiah leaves home, his father Tobit assures him that an “angel of God would accompany him with salvation” (see Tob 5:17). Azariah-Raphael had already affirmed those ideas in 5:13, through his ironical and symbolical answer to Tobit’s embarrassing question about his familial lineage (“I am Azariah, «YHWH has helped»; son of Hananiah, «YHWH has shown favor», the great”). The conjunction of such components serve the narrator to specify Raphael’s main action in the story, anticipated in general terms in 3:16–17. Repeatedly referring Azariah-Raphael as “the angel” since the beginning of the travel, such vocative, highlighting function not essence, insists to the reader not only Tobiah’s companion true identity but also his work in the story. Through his guidance, the angel performs a real instructive and educational role regarding Tobiah.13

13 “Para Tobias, inexperto en todo, el hermano Azarías es el sabio maestro, el amigo fiel, el guía seguro; su palabra es como la roca firma en que se apoya, la luz que ahuyenta tinieblas y miedos. Azarías es varón fuerte y seguro; él, un jovencito débil y asustadizo. El lector sabe más que Tobías: el hermano Azarías es el ángel Rafael, enviado como representante de Dios; sus palabras descubren los planos ocultos del Señor.” See Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 132.

4.1 Poetics of Tob 6 

 269

4.1.4.3 The Dog The “mysterious” dog, although a mere walk-on character, described merely following his master, besides perhaps helping to further characterize Tobiah as “the lad,” appears to serve mostly a literary purpose. Besides helping to improve the picturesque dimension of the account, the dog serves to intensify its mnemonic dynamics. From the point of view of the communicative dynamics of the text, we also interpreted it as the “natural” component of the programmatic and proleptic statement of Tob 6:2a. 4.1.4.4 The Fish Brief in its mention and specific in its characterization, Tobit’s decisive fish in effect remains present through its organs from its emergence up to the account of Tobit’s healing in Tob 11. Not surprising considering its key role for plot denouement. In that regard, we proposed that its characterization as “big, great,” although clearly referring to its body size, may also be understood in the sense of its importance. Its allegorical interpretation by early Christian authors, via the early acronymic usage of ἰχθύς to refer to Christian beliefs about Christ, supports such proposal. Although being “big” the fish was not so ferocious considering the easiness with which Tobiah is able to catch it alone. Our intertextual analysis, showing the numerous points of contact between Tobit’s fish incident and Jonah’s (in the mode of a parody of it), suggests that the fish’s characterization in Tob 6 serves the narrator also to emphasize important themes of his story (like that of obedience). 4.1.4.5 The Demon In Tob 6, the narrator, further specifies both Asmodeus’ nature and activity presented in Tob 3. While answering Tobiah’s question about the fish’s organs, Azariah-Raphael affirms their efficacy also for warding off demons. Tobiah then while replying to Azariah’s marriage proposal not only restates the narrator’s characterization of the demon in 3:8, but adds a rationale for its wrathful behavior: the demon “loves” Sarah with a lustful love. Such explanation helps to understand better the demon’s envy regarding Sarah’s suitors, for not being able to “have” her. Spiritual entities’ lust for human women recall Enoch’s story of the Watchers (1 Enoch 7–10) and appear to be an amplification or rework of Genesis’ tradition of the “sons of God” and the “giants” (Gen 6:1–4). Raphael’s reply to Tobiah to “not be afraid of this demon” (6:16d), together with his invitation to prayer, indirectly affirms God’s lordship over such evil entities (recall 6:17–18e). Through it, the author seems willing to dispel folkloric reputation of demons’ power.

270 

 4 Poetics and narrative function of Tobit 6: Synthesis and conclusions

4.1.4.6 Raguel Raguel, introduced in the story with the narrator’s presentation of Sarah’s plight (see 3:7), is there characterized by Sarah herself. There he is described as a father who loves his daughter (see 3:10) and whose honor Sarah was always concerned with (recall 3:15). In Tob 6, the narrator lets the angel characterize Sarah’s father. He is again referred to as a father, who loves his only daughter and who has destined all of his estate to her (compare 3:14–15; 6:11b–12). Both Tob 3 and Tob 6 insist on the idea of Raguel as father of an only child and a wealthy man, whose estate is destined to his daughter. The repeated idea of Raguel’s “love” for his daughter, seems to serve to highlight their reciprocal attachment. 4.1.4.7 Sarah Sarah is presented by the narrator in Tob 3 as Raguel’s daughter and tormented by the evil demon Asmodeus. As a consequence of the demonic activity she has become seven times a widow and remains childless (3:8). Raguel’s maid servant for her part, describes Sarah a turmoiled person, with an impulsive temperament prompted even to physical assault. Sarah’s verbal aggression by the servant, appears the consequence not the cause of the maid’s chastisement (see 3:8–9). Sarah sees herself loved by her father. Interestingly, in Tob 6 three different characters are said to love Sarah: Raguel, the demon and finally Tobiah. Raguel loves her for being his only daughter; Asmodeus, merely out of lust, in the intent of surpassing the limits of his nature; Tobiah finally, even before meeting her, for being a kinswoman from his paternal lineage (filial piety). In Tob 3 Sarah emerges as a reflexive woman, pious, concerned for her father’s honor (see 3:10–15). Her words in 3:15 suggest also a concern on her part regarding endogamy. In Tob 6, she is described by the angel in very positive terms: reflexive, courageous and exceedingly beautiful” (recall 6:12d). All three features appear important for Raphael’s persuasive work, with the last one particularly intended to wake up the lad’s interest (in that regard the angel seems to play the role of a “cupid”). Notwithstanding that, the decisive argument for Tobiah’s falling in love with her, ironically becomes, his filial piety in relation to his father’s “precept” of endogamy. 4.1.4.8 The Lord of Heaven In his efforts to dispel Tobiah’s fear regarding marriage with Sarah, Raphael characterizes also God in Tob 6. While reassuring the lad the efficacy of the fish’s organs against the killing demon, Raphael adds prayer to the apotropaic protocol (recall 6:16–18e). Such invitation to prayer appears to play various functions: it serves to stress one of the book’s main teachings; in light of Tob 3:16–17, it underscores the efficacy of such religious practice and thus indirectly characterizes the God of

4.1 Poetics of Tob 6 

 271

Israel as one attentive to his faithful’s needs and ready to answer them (according to His will; recall 12:18); last, the angel’s invitation to prayer in connection to the heart and liver’s burning ritual also serves to dispel in the reader’s mind any magical assumption regarding such instruction. God in Raphael’s lips is invoked with Tobit’s preferred divine epithet often found in other STP literature: “Lord of Heaven.” In light of Tob 5:17, “heaven” indicates the “place” where God dwells; where important decisions regarding mankind, specially with respect to his faithful are taken (3:16–17); from there God looks protectively on men and assures the success of their endeavors. The “Lord of Heaven” is merciful towards his faithful. 4.1.4.9 Tobit Significantly, Tobit is evoked in the travel story twice as “father” (recall 6:15c.16b). Although Azariah’s words regarding fish gall for healing white films from the eyes of a man (6:9) apparently did not produce any reaction on behalf of Tobiah (the narrator in fact left to the reader’s thoughts how they affected Tobiah), such mention appears clearly part of the angel’s persuasive work, already there, regarding marriage with Sarah. The angel’s gradual presentation of the marriage proposal, aroused in Tobiah, having manifested acquaintance with the demon’s killing work, concern for his father, in effect for the “life of my father and my mother” (6:15c). Notably, Tobiah’s concern with his parents is connected with the themes of death and burial. Moreover, although Tobiah refers both father and mother, the connection of such mention with such themes, highlights his concern with his father’s command in 4:3–4 and therefore his particular devotion to him (Tobit). Such narrative articulation therefore seems intended to highlight ὡς ὅμοιος ὁ νεανίσκος οὗτος Τωβεῖ as Raguel soon declares (see 7:2). In light of Tob 6, Raguel’s statement may be read in the sense of Tobiah’s involvement, up to that point, with the dead, just like his father (recall 5:10; 4:3; 1:17–19). The evocation of Tobit is an evocation of his commands and therefore of Tobit’s constant control over Tobiah.

4.1.5 A Compendium of Tobit’s Main Themes and Motifs The richness of Tob 6 constitutes not only its vast catalogue of characters, but also its concentration of Tobit’s main arguments. In that regard, Tob 6 may be seen as a “compendium” of Tobit’s key themes and motifs. 4.1.5.1 “The Lad, the Angel and the Dog” In the book of Tobit, there occurs an interesting interaction between the human, the divine (in the sense of “supra-natural”) and the natural. In effect, Tobit’s

272 

 4 Poetics and narrative function of Tobit 6: Synthesis and conclusions

especial position in the pagan rulers’ court was a grant from God (see 1:13–14) as well as their punishment (recall 1:18). Tobit becomes blind due to birds’ droppings right into his eyes (2:9–10); his prayer for death is activated by a discussion regarding a “kid from the goats” (2:12). The narrator’s precise announcement of Tobiah’s departure in 6:2a, in which the lad, the angel and the dog, the three mentioned with the definite article and in that sequence, in our view, summarizes the author’s idea regarding such interaction: human existence implies a conjunction and interaction of the three dimensions they symbolize. Behind such point of view, is perhaps affirmed a doctrine on creation and its Creator, and their relationship. In Tob 6, the narrator’s statement anticipates the order of significance of the three elements in the episode itself and in the story as a whole: Tobiah is the main focus of attention in his interaction with the divine (represented by the angel) and the natural (the fish). In contrast with Tobit’s relationship with the natural (marked by disarrangement), Tobiah’s, under the angel’s encouragement and direction, is made harmonious and profitable.

4.1.5.2 Filial Piety and Obedience Tobiah is introduced to the reader in his father’s statement of fulfillment of the endogamy precept (recall 1:9). The lad is thus presented as a legitimate Israelite begotten from “woman from our paternal lineage.” Tobiah therefore is also “fruit” of his father’s obedience to that teaching. The idea of obedience continues to dominate the book in various manner thereon. Tobiah’s debut as character enacts precisely such theme (recall 2:2–3). Tobiah’s characterization as an obedient son reaches its climax in his statement of unquestionable obedience to his father’s commands in Tob 4 (5:1). Tobiah’s filial piety towards his father continues to be emphasized around such theme. Tobiah decides traveling to the East without his father’s explicit request. The account of the travel arrangement (Tob 5), also brings to surface a negative dimension of that positive attitude: Tobiah’s childlike behavior and a complete dependence on his father. In light of that, the narrator’s very statement of Tobiah’s actual departure from Nineveh in 6:2a, becomes not only another (under)statement of his filial piety and obedience, but his manner of referring him, an emphasis on his maturity as the travel begins. Tobiah’s childish dependence is transferred to Azariah (the literary pattern “command-implementation” underlines it). Building upon Tobiah’s chief feature, the angel wisely leads him into a process of emancipation or independence (maturation), which implies a repeated exercise of free will and judgment. Such process appears propaedeutic for the positive result of Raphael’s proposal of marriage with Sarah, in the realization of the divine established plan. The intertextual evocation of Gen 22 and the story of Jonah, serve among other things also to emphasize such theme and dynamics.

4.1 Poetics of Tob 6 

 273

4.1.5.3 Healing and Salvation Tobit’s major theme of “healing” is evoked not only through the narrator’s referral of Azariah’s true name with its implied sense (recall 6:11a.14a.18k), but also through the use of verb ὑγιαίνω (“to be sound, healthy”) in 6:9. The idea of “salvation” is explicitly affirmed by the angel (recall 6:18g) with respect to Sarah’s deliverance from the demon through Tobiah’s action (σὺ αὐτὴν σώσεις). “Healing” and “salvation” are thus connected in Tobit, perhaps as a manner of emphasizing two dimensions of the same reality. Tobit’s healing in fact signifies for him deliverance from his living among the dead and his petition in prayer for its real happening. Sarah’s salvation from the demon, signifies for her also a healing from her almost obsessive concern for her father’s honor which led to a “demonization” of sexuality against an original divine ordinance. As human agent for both healing and salvation, Tobiah experiences also both, through his deliverance from the attacking fish and his maturation as a character. 4.1.5.4 Kinship and Family Not only Tobit as a whole, whose main incidents take place within family environments, but also its travel story, stresses the importance of kinship and family. The vocative ἄδελφε which both Azariah and Tobiah use to refer to each other during the travel, besides describing the ambience of trust and friendship that has been established between the two, emphasizes the reader the importance of such themes. Likewise the dialogues between Tobiah and Raphael referring most terms related to the family (father, mother, bride, bridegroom, children, marriage). Finally, the term ἀδελφός in Tob 6 and the idea of kinship that it highlights, is intimately connected with the theme of endogamy, with its ethnical and social dimensions. Emphasis on the familial environment and family bonds in Tobit, emphasizes the family as the privileged environment for the transmission of Jewish way of living and values in the Diaspora. 4.1.5.5 Genders’ Roles, Marriage, Sexuality Tob 6’s implicit statements regarding gender roles seem clearly bound to ideas and costumes of the time. Its message regarding them, together with its views on marriage and sexuality however is certainly and finally a positive one. With marriage is implicated also “heaven,” sustaining even God’s role in its arrangement. In contrast to Sarah’s views in 3:14,14 sexual intercourse suggested perhaps also

14 In her words to God in prayer, Sarah characterizes herself as being “clean from any defilement with a man” (καθαρά εἰμι ἀπὸ πάσης ἀκαθαρσίας ἀνδρὸς).

274 

 4 Poetics and narrative function of Tobit 6: Synthesis and conclusions

by the various elements of the fish incident, and although at least peculiar, is motivated even by the angel (recall 6:18c). In light of Tob 8:7, the book’s views on marriage and sexuality affirm their sacrality for being part of a divine established order.

4.1.5.6 Endogamy Intimately connected with the previous ideas is Tob 6’s emphasis on endogamy. Although no explicit command in that regard is found in the Torah, Tobit commends such practice in reference to the “book of Moses,” with even a “death penalty” evoked for a contrary behavior (recall 6:13). The idea of capital punishment in relation Mosaic Law appears to have above all a rhetorical function as a means to emphasize the importance of such teaching in the book and as means to reinforce the angel’s appeal to Tobiah. Endogamy in fact appears early in the book (recall 1:9). As noted before, Tobiah is “fruit” also of his father’s fulfillment of it. The story of Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah,which Tob 6 prepares as narrative programme emphasizes such teaching, underscored through the enactment of it right after the travel story. Moreover, the angel’s language of “inheriting/ inheritance” with respect to Sarah in Tob 6, seems to serve to stress the social function of endogamic marriage preserving religious and ethnic identity and keeping together the family estate (Tobit’s emphasis on almsgiving, besides strengthening the sense of community, may be interpreted also as part of the rhetoric regarding endogamy). Perhaps also an eschatological aspect is to be grasped in the narrator’s articulation of such theme (to keep alive the hope for future restoration).

4.1.5.7 Death and Burial The theme of death and burial also appears early in the Tobit. Burying of the dead is one of Tobit’s great concerns, the first teaching he enjoins his son Tobiah in Tob 4 and the one Tobiah enacts at the closing of the book (14:13). Also Raguel is concerned with it (recall 8:9–11.18). That burying of the dead represents a good deed before God, Raphael’s validation of it in his final speech confirms (12:13). Tobit’s motif of burial is recognized to be particularly debted to Genesis traditions, practically the sole OT book that imparts teaching on that pious work. As in the case of endogamy, no explicit precept regarding proper burial of the dead is found in the halakhic traditions of our present Pentateuch. In Tob 6, the theme of death is emphasized through the “night” motif and explicitly recalled through Tobiah’s words in 6:14–15, both regarding his duty with respect to his parents and in relation to his possible marriage with Sarah. Those words emphasize how imbued

4.1 Poetics of Tob 6 

 275

was Tobiah with his father’s “living among the dead” (recall 5:10) fruit not only of his blindness “depression” but also of his obsessed religiosity.15 4.1.5.8 The Theme of Remembrance Raphael’s decisive argument that convinces Tobiah to accept marriage with Sarah, is the evocation of his father’s precept on endogamy (recall 4:12; 6:16). Such evocation is introduced with typical Deuteronomic language of remembrance.16 Raphael’s invitation to remembering Tobit’s commands, although explicitly stating only that on endogamy, serves implicitly to remind the reader also Tobit’s words in 2:2 and in a special manner Tobit’s teachings in 4:5.19, which equates remembrance of God to fulfillment of his commandments. Thus, through the specific manner he recalls Tobit’s precept on endogamy, Raphael in effect revives in Tobiah both filial and religious piety, imprinting thus a deep psychological forcefulness to the proposal of marriage with Sarah. 4.1.5.9 Prayer In his reassurance to Tobiah of the apotropaic efficacy of the fish’s organs, Azariah- Raphael also evokes another of Tobit’s main teachings to its Diaspora original audience: prayer or more precisely, the efficacy of it. The term “prayer” and even more so the invitation to it, in the mouth of one who is present in the story precisely as a divine answer to the supplications of two exile sufferers is particularly appealing. Through such articulation, the narrator anticipates and reassures the reader the efficacy of the apotropaic ritual, whose efficacy is thus intimately connected with the divine power, which the faithful reaches through prayer for mercy. 4.1.5.10 “Divine Providence” God in Tob 6 is characterized explicitly as the merciful “Lord of Heaven,” as discussed before. The presence and guiding action of Raphael, as God’s envoy and messenger, also implicitly affirms another of Tobit’s cherished views regarding the Divinity: the God of Israel is the God of history, a God that intervenes in the history of the people and of individuals in particular. In light of that, God in Tobit

15 “Potremmo dire che questo suo pensiero per la morte è un sintomo evidente di come egli viva bloccato dalla sua stessa religiosità e non riesca a vedere oltre la propria rigorosa osservanza religiosa; sarà il figlio Tobia che lo farà uscire da questa tenebra, guarendolo da una cecità che non è soltanto esteriore.” See Mazzinghi, “La sofferenza dell’anziano Tobi”, 85. 16 See Di Lella, “The Deuteronomic Background”, 384–385.

276 

 4 Poetics and narrative function of Tobit 6: Synthesis and conclusions

is presented and believed as transcendent and “near” at same time. In modern terms, God is characterized as “Provident.” The idea of the “Lord of Heaven” who intervenes upon the earth, also affirms God’s dominion over all created reality (see 10:13). Raphael’s words to Tobiah to overpower the attacking fish and his instructions on the medicinal virtue of some of its organs, as well as his work and words regarding Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah, may be read in that light. God’s hidden action in history is also underscored through the angel’s human identity as Azariah, which means precisely “God helps.”

4.1.6 Articulated With Literary, Narrative and Rhetorical Resourcefulness 4.1.6.1 Interaction Tob 6 is the sole occasion in the story where Tobiah interacts with the divine envoy alone, and in a extended manner (during all the narrated time thought by the narrator for the relatively brief narrating time of his travel story). Introducing the episode’s characters in relation to Tobiah (v.2a), the narrator makes the reader wonder about what would occur with and among the three company’s members in the course of the travel. Through the next sentence (v.2b), the reader realizes that the dog is not going to be part of that interaction. Furthermore, although right after the fish occupies momentaneously the foreground with Tobiah and Azariah-Raphael, and Tobiah interacts with it, soon after, it is recalled merely through its healing organs. The fish incident (vv.4–6c), from the point of view we are considering it, highlights finally Tobiah’s first interaction with the angel in dialogue form. Thereon, the travel story resumes in that exact same form (6:6d18j). “Dialogue” therefore characterizes Tobiah’s interaction with the angel in the travel account. However, more than merely informative, such mode of interaction is profoundly performative. Azariah’s instructive words, direct Tobiah regarding the fish, provoke his discernment (6:6d-9) and appeal profoundly to his will power, his memory and his sensibility (6:10–18j). In other words, implying Tobiah’s whole self, the angel’s verbal interaction with him during the travel emerge profoundly formative. A real exercise of growth appears at play in such process.

4.1.6.2 Revelation Plot and Resolutive Dimension of Tob 6 Tob 6 in a first approach presents itself as a “revelation plot” (i.e. a plot through which the reader grows in knowledge of the characters). In fact, it is mostly through the travel account with its components that the narrator allows Tobiah and the angel to manifest themselves as characters, the former through action and speech; the later, only through speech. As noted in our exegesis, the fish incident

4.1 Poetics of Tob 6 

 277

is the sole moment of the episode in which Tobiah acts, with a series of eleven actions being enumerated by the narrator one after the other almost breathlessly. With respect to Tobiah’s actions, we notice that up to chapter 6 they were merely equivalent to fulfilling his father’s commands: wandering about in search, first of a poor person to share the meal (2:2–3) and of a travel companion (5:3–4); then getting ready all things needed for the travel (5:17). The first “finding” implies Tobiah with his father’s involvement with the dead; the second, is the start up of his involvement with the divine plan. In both sequences, verb ζητέω is the Leitwort which, besides its function in forming a literary inclusion between those moments and thus a relationship between their respective components, underscores in a veiled manner the main orientation of his travel: quest. Tobiah leaves home to retrieve family money. By the guidance of God’s angel in disguise such purpose is refocused, becoming the finding of a bride, who after seven intents finally becomes a wife and later a mother. With respect to the narrator’s revelatory “donations” in the episode, a gradual process is noticeable. Although, such donation continues throughout the three subepisodes of the travel story 6, they occur in a crescendo, in direct proportion to plot development and the respective narrating space each of them amounts. Through that, the narrator increases the reader’s knowledge about the characters and at the same time advances their development. Such narrative process implies therefore, a proportional increase in volume, quantity and quality regarding the knowledge donated, which entails pari passu a characterological disclosure with respect to Raphael and both disclosure and improvement, with respect to Tobiah. Furthermore, where the narrator’s “donation” is more sober, his narrative economy serves to activate more effectively the rhetoric device attached to it in views of its intended purpose. Emblematic in that regard appears the episode’s second phrase (v.2b), which donates little to the reader at level of the “story,” but it is vital for the activation of an important intertextual connection at level of the “discourse,” through which the narrator connects his story and characters with those, in that case, of Gen 22. Such narrative “donation” and “economy” on the narrator’s behalf, either directly or through the characters, serves the narrator also to keep dialogue with the reader about important issues of his story. Such dynamics seems crucial to keep the reader’s interest, in a story which is marked by anticipations. In a more general sense of the term, the “revelatory” feature of Tob 6 regards also the means through which the announced healings in Tob 3:16–17 are going to come about. A surprising novelty in that regard becomes Tobiah’s involvement and leading role in that regard instead of the angel. Such dynamics is another example of the author’s carefulness in keeping the narrative coherence of his story, since a more incisive action in that regard, of one who was hired to serve as guide and companion, would appear rather odd, considering the

278 

 4 Poetics and narrative function of Tobit 6: Synthesis and conclusions

narrator’s interest since the entrance of the angel in the story (Tob 5), in keeping hidden from the characters, according to a divine established plan, Azariah’s true identity up to the end of the story. The two categories of “revelation” and “resolution” regarding plot are in effect often intermingled in narratives. In Tob 6 the narrator seems to combine both plot types to prepare the rest of the narrative (i.e. to construe its narrative programme). 4.1.6.3 Distortions of Time and Vagueness in References of Place Although present in the narrative and even inserted at key points (see Tob 6:2d.6d.10ab), the references of place in the travel story appear rather vague. Such vagueness, however, at first glance appears to turn Tobiah’s travel from Nineveh to Ecbatana into a three days journey. From a literary point of view, Tob 6’s references of place function as text delimiters, structuring the travel account in three main segments. With respect to the narrative rhetoric, they serve creating suspense towards Ecbatana, Tobiah’s final travel destination. A similar situation is perceivable regarding Tob 6’s references of time. Its mention of a “first night” and “this night” are rather vague. Distortions of time are also perceivable in the narrator’s play with narrated and narrating time, where a great amount of narrated time (as that needed to cover the travel distances) are recounted swiftly (with few words regarding the category of place) and vice-versa. Considering that through dialogue narrating time and narrated time coincide, through such resource the narrator is able to create a sort of “real time” effect, through which he involves the reader more intensely with the narrative. In Tob 6 therefore the basic coordinates of “history” emerge vague and imprecise.17 Such narrative situation, constitutes another element that substantiates our suggestion that the account of Tob 6 was in fact devised not as a realistic and adventure-like story, as a rhetorical unit with an instructive feature and specific purposes (the main of which is Tobiah’s maturation as character). 4.1.6.4 Reorientation Another detectable component of Tob 6’s poetics may be labelled as “reorientation.” Such notion in the episode operates at more than one level and with respect to more than one of its components. The most noticeable expression of it occurs at story level, in the change operated by the angel regarding Tobiah’s 17 Such feature is even more patent in the story of Judith from its very first lines: “It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. At that time Arphaxad was ruling over the Medes in Ecbatana” (Jdt 1:1, NAB translation). Such a statement dispenses commentary.

4.1 Poetics of Tob 6 

 279

travel’s destination and its purpose. Although mentioning Rages in the course of his argumentation regarding marriage with Sarah, the angel skillfully and gradually redirects Tobiah’s focus of attention from “money retrieval” to “Sarah,” which imply a change in his journey’s destination, which instead of Rages ends at Ecbatana. Through such geographical reorientation, which implies also a change of motivation, from obedience to paternal “command” (implied in the original purpose of his journey) to free acceptance of marriage with Sarah, the narrator also effects Tobiah’s characterological development. Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah in fact becomes in light of his father’s very words in 1:9 his reaching manhood. For that achievement, the angel’s wise guidance to the one that committed himself totally into his hands since the first moments of the travel (see 6:2b), not only signified reorientation of a travel destination according to a divine orchestrated plan, but much more so, of important inner dispositions and perspectives. Building upon what Tobiah had (recall 2:2–3; 5:1–3.7–9), the angel is able to help him to achieve what he lacked (maturity). Tobiah for his part, while enacting exactly Azariah’s instructions regarding Sarah, also has a similar effect on her, with respect to her father. Noteworthy, such process produces no rupture of values, but in fact a reorientation of them. 4.1.6.5 Inversion Tobiah’s acceptance of marriage with Sarah does not constitute the sole result or sole expression of Tobiah’s maturation as character. His characterological improvement seems also graspable right in the beginning of chapter 7 when Tobiah takes the floor and commands his travel companion to lead him immediately (εὐθεῖαν) “to Raguel our brother” (πρὸς Ραγουηλ τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν; see 7:1). The narrator is careful in using again the command-implementation pattern encountered in Tob 6 to refer ironically to Azariah’s prompt fulfillment of Tobiah’s mandate. Such articulation marks the beginning of striking inversion process thereon: from 7:1 onwards in fact Tobiah assumes a leading role without precedent. Tobiah in fact, will handle the whole of marriage arrangement (see 7:10–12); will commission Azariah’s travel to retrieve the family money by Gabael (Tob 9); and lastly, will impose his decision over Raguel’s regarding the time to return home (see 10:7–9). Such leading role, as anticipated in the course of our exegesis, manifests in a synthetic manner, Tobiah’s characterological improvement. 4.1.6.6 Repetition Repetition appears to be one of the narrator’s cherished rhetorical devices. The poetics of Tob 6 is also characterized by his artful “rhetoric of repetition.” Such rhetoric is construed through various specific resources.

280 

 4 Poetics and narrative function of Tobit 6: Synthesis and conclusions

Structuring Devices Perhaps the most “external” but no less important of its components are the structuring devices detected once again in Tob 6. In order to delimit literary units or to emphasize certain ideas, ancient authors had to play with certain structuring devices, through creative disposition or repetition of words. From among various possible structuring patterns, Tob 6 employs mainly three: chiasmus (ABB’A’ pattern), concentric or ring structures (ABA’ pattern) and literary inclusions. All three resources seem to serve both as demarcators and highlighters. With respect to such devices, as noted in loco, it is difficult, perhaps impossible to assert apodictically, given the fragmentary state of the oldest textual evidence (Qumran texts), whether or not they were part of the “original” writing. In any case, such devices are objectively found in the text. Thus a chiasmus is noticeable through the manner the narrator introduces Tob 6:4–5 but also in vv.16d.18i. The recounting of the fish emergence is patterned in a ring structure, created through parallelism of synonymous words, serving to highlight the emergence of the big fish and its narrative significance. Subjacent to such highlighting seems to be the narrator’s statement of the significance of the fish for the realization of divine orchestrated plan. Also patterned in a similar manner appears Raphael’s first words to Tobiah (6:11b-13). The parallel repetition of certain phrases, isolates and thus underscores the angel’s statement of “death penalty” for disrespect of endogamy, with its ironical and psychological pun. Such highlighting paves the way for the angel’s decisive argument regarding marriage with Sarah (v.16a), further strengthening it. Moreover, the angel’s discourses as well as Tobiah’s reply in between, are composed with repetition of exact phrases found in other moments of the narrative, thus forming literary inclusions which, among other things, serve to recall, restate and underscore key ideas at stake in the narrative argumentation (like that of kinship, endogamy, proper burial and filial piety). We have also noticed that by repeating key terms, the narrator creates “inner hook ups,” through which he tights more neatly the various narrative units, strengthening their rhetorical forcefulness.

Command-Implementation Pattern Also found in other parts of the book (see for instance 2:2–3; 5:3–4) the pattern scholars labelled “command-implementation” is also part of Tob 6’s rhetoric of repetition. Wording of the command restated in exact or similar manner in the report of its implementation, such pattern in Tob 6 serves to stress Tobiah’s prompt and faithful execution of all of Azariah’s directions regarding the attacking fish (recall 6:4b.6a). Noteworthy, such technique of repetition occurs before the travel mainly with respect to Tobiah, as it appears as a means to emphasize

4.1 Poetics of Tob 6 

 281

Tobiah’s typical attitude before his father and thus his characterization as an obedient and dependent son. The use of such technique regarding Tobiah with respect to Azariah, perceived merely as a human figure, we interpreted suggesting the replication of Tobiah’s typical attitude before his father with respect to his travel guide, which reinforce our interpretation of v.2b. Furthermore, such narrative articulation in Tob 6, serves to highlight the “inversion” that takes place from 7:1 onwards. Emblematic in that regard in particular is the short account of Tob 9. Leitwortstil Leitwortstil (“guiding-word-style”) emerged as an ulterior component of that rhetorical articulation. Through such resource, the narrator directs the reader’s attention to certain concepts towards the intended sense of the text. Thus for instance, the narrator’s peculiar manner of referring Tobiah and Raphael (antonomasia) serves to stress the reader Tobiah’s characterological age and his position as “apprentice” before the one who is finally an angel of God, and thus also to highlight the instructive dimension of the account. Likewise the term “night,” which occurs in the first lines of the episode, serves among other things to emphasize the liminal feature of the travel process which culminates in Tobiah’s marriage consummation with Sarah (highest expression of his reaching manhood in light of Tob 1:9). In the angel’s words to Tobiah, terms regarding kinship, fidelity to the Law, inheritance and taking/receiving, serve to insist in the importance of the marriage proposal, which the angel construes with terms regarding kinship, paving the way for his decisive argument (evocation of Tobit’s instruction in 4:12) which emphasize the book’s teaching on endogamy. 4.1.6.7 Intertextuality The “biblicized” feature of Tobit, created by means of “intertextual” connections at various levels was also detected in the travel story. Particularly significant appeared the episode’s link for instance with the accounts of Gen 22 and the story of Jonah, but also to Gen 24. With respect to Gen 22, mainly through the repetition of the stock phrase, “and the two of them walked together” (recall Gen 22:6.8; Tob 6:2b.6d) Tobiah is brought to comparison with Isaac. The recounting of Tobiah’s encounter with the big fish, connecting the travel story with Jonah’s, contrasts Tobiah’s prompt response to his father’s implicit appeal with prophet’s fleeting answer to God’s, highlighting it. As it appears, therefore, “intertextuality” serves to revive in the reader’s mind, popular traditions of his religious patrimony, mostly with a didactic scope. Tobit’s ideas are then proposed or emphasized upon that background. Moreover, Tobit’s intertextual links serve also as a means of characterizing the protagonists by means of comparison or contrast

282 

 4 Poetics and narrative function of Tobit 6: Synthesis and conclusions

(Tobiah-Isaac/Tobiah-Jonah/Raphael-Abraham/Raphael- Abraham’s servant). Considering Tobit’s plausible historical context, in which Greek values and ideals begin to attract more and more young Israelites, such resource of repetition emerges as a creative manner of reviving in them, traditional values connected to known stories, through a fresh and attractive new one.

4.1.7 Irony Particularly significant and effective in Tobit’s rhetorical strategy, appears to be the ironical pun the narrator is able to imprint in the various moments of the travel story, both through the actions (dramatic irony) and through the words of the protagonists (verbal irony). Irony in fact, whose presence in the story is recognized by most commentators, appears to be one of the Tobit’s most cherished rhetorical resources. In Tob 6, irony emerges in Tobiah’s departure to the unknown to retrieve an enormous sum of money, in the company of a stranger and of his dog (even if being an angel of God, within the world of the narration Raphael is merely Azariah, a fellow Israelite). Irony involves also Azariah’s connivence with Tobiah’s night bath at the Tigris and his mere instructive response to his cry for help (strange reaction of one hired to accompany and protect Tobiah). Ironical appears also the angel’s response about the fish’s organs addressing Tobiah with imperatives in second person, thus anticipating his involvement in similar processes. Ironical appears the angel of God as marriage arranger, almost as a sort of “cupid”. Loaded with irony emerges his question to Tobiah in v.16b. The resultant irony in the narrator’s manner of recounting, therefore, besides enriching the aesthetics of the text, serves to highlight key components of the narrative project of Tob 6 and also to enhance the reader’s interest for instance by activating the narrator’s direct appeal to him and to his knowledge in contrast with that of character’s.

4.1.8 Play with Spatial Coordinates Although less evident in the text, the play with axial coordinates appears also a rhetorical device in the travel account. Tob 6 begins at “horizontal” level with a centrifugal movement describing the process that is taking place regarding Tobiah: “externally,” he leaves home and his familial environment; “internally,” he is detaching himself for the first time from his father’s protection. At that axial level, the idilic narrative description of a young men walking gladly with his dog and an angel of God in disguise, through the “safe” road to Media, transmits a

4.1 Poetics of Tob 6 

 283

message of harmony and stability. “The two of them walked together” (6:2b). Tobiah’s descent (vertical movement) to the river’s banks to wash his feet, breaks that “togetherness” and the harmony of the situation soon becomes (momentaneously) disarranged. Tobiah’s “descent” becomes the fish’s “ascent.” A shout is heard “up” and an answer is sent “down.” The resolution, is Tobiah’s catching of the big fish and its dragging to dry land, followed by its cutting, cooking, eating and sparing. Harmony is recovered at “horizontal” level as the travelers move forwards. The narrator’s “geographical” annotations then, at that same axial level, creates suspense ever more clearly towards Tobiah’s final destination: Ecbatana of Media. Tobiah leaves home, faces a peril and then continues travelling; to reach another home, face a peril, to then in unexpectedly different condition (married and taking with him half of his father-in-law estate together with his father’s fortune retrieved by the angel) make his home return (centripetal movement). At horizontal level is found the “way” which is made prosperous by the angel’s guiding interventions. Tobiah’s main richness at that level, becomes his coherence, in having fulfilled his father’s command (particularly that of endogamy but also “remembrance” of God), through which he reaches manhood. Articulating Tobiah’s successful movements appears finally, in the angel’s person, the “Lord of heaven” (recall 6:18d; 7:11) who is praised by Tobiah in 10:13, after the tremendous success of his travel, also of the “earth” (thus vertical and horizontal axis again implied).

4.1.9 Psychological Appeal Psychological appeal seems to constitute also another important rhetorical device of Tob 6. Tobiah’s typical attitude before his father had been replicated with respect to Azariah. By repeating once and again key ideas regarding endogamy (kinship, lawfulness, family bonds) in a crescendo, Azariah’s arguments reach a first climax in the statement on “death penalty according to the judgement of the book of Moses” with respect to that “precept.” The ever more explicit and intense marriage proposal with Sarah and the idea of “death,” revives in Tobiah family nostalgia and fear: among the injunctions he received from his father in Tob 4, and with which he committed himself formally (recall 5:1) was also proper burial of his parents, concern with which Tobiah externalizes in 6:14–15 and through which he manifests his filial piety and affection. Raphael’s psychological appeal is then strengthened through his double allusion to the “Rages’ mission” in v.13 (reason of Tobiah’s travel). While resolving the issue of the lad’s fear, Raphael not only reassures Tobiah the apotropaic efficacy of the fish’s heart and liver to ward off the demon, but also evokes the authority of the Lord of Heaven regarding it through

284 

 4 Poetics and narrative function of Tobit 6: Synthesis and conclusions

his invitation to prayer. Such invitation also recalls another of Tobit’s teachings on “remembrance” of God (godliness). The angel’s persuasive discourse, therefore, achieves its goal not only through its artful rhetorical articulation but also its markedly psychological appeal, through which Tobiah’s innermost values are stirred and his whole self (intelligence and will) implicated with it.

4.1.10 Dynamics of Anticipations Last, the travel story is also marked with Tobit’s “dynamics of anticipations.” Tobit in fact, anticipates its happy end to the reader early as 3:16–17. In chapter 5, he is surprised by the angel of God disguised as human. In that manner the narrator continues his communicative dynamics onwards: the reader has more knowledge than the characters and their statements to one another acquire a different meaning at story level and at level of the discourse, to the reader and to the characters. Through his dynamics of anticipations and double level of communication, the narrator keeps his dialogue with the reader. Precisely by that effect, Tobit’s anticipations do not “lose” the reader by its inevitable “flattening” effect, but together with other resources, keeps his interest. As a consequence of that communicative dynamics, a process of flash-backs and flash-forwards is also detectable (as when Raphael affirms Tobiah the medicinal value of the fish’s organs in 6:5b, which causes a flash-back to the narrator’s statement of 3:16–17 for instance). Azariah’s answer about the fish’s organs then, through his reply with imperatives in the second person singular, creates a flash-forward about the manner in which the healing processes would come about, surprisingly with Tobiah as their protagonist. The reader’s interest is also maintained through the information the narrator reveal concomitantly to both readers and characters (as Tobiah’s awareness of Sarah’s plight or the angel’s knowledge of Tobit’s commands); the presence and volume of the narrative instance throughout the account (different in the various moments of the episode) and reticence (created for instance through the laconic end of the inquiry sequence about the fish’s organs).

Corollary: Stylized Feature of Tob 6 The above mentioned components of Tob 6, as a whole, imprint the travel story with a “stylized” feature. In other words, considered more closely from a literary and narrative point of view, the travel story reveals itself with a significantly different “physiognomy” from the one that emerges at first glance. The careful manner in which the narrator recounts the episode, with the succession of so

4.2 Narrative Function of Tob 6 

 285

numerous literary and rhetorical devices coordinating the sense of each segment, suggests that the narrator’s emphasis is at discourse level more than at level of the story. The narrator’s careful articulation of various rhetorical resources, transforms the initially emergent adventurous story into a “factory” of meaning and message communicated to the attentive reader through the text’s various communicative dynamics. Such strategy seems specially significant, considering the dense didactic feature of the travel account and its decisive role in involving the reader with Tobit’s ideological web. Tobiah’s travel with his fellow Israelite Azariah, hired to be his travel guide, becomes in the reader’s eyes, an instructive, almost a-temporal narrative about Tobiah’s mostly dialogical interaction with a God-sent-angel in disguise. The narrator in fact artfully guides the reader to be at Tobiah’s side and to some extent in his place, in order to participate actively in the pedagogical articulation that occurs in the simple three moments of the travel story. The sum of elements that emerge from a more careful reading of Tob 6, substantiate the hypothesis we have repeatedly underscored, that our chapter was in fact devised by the author with a key narrative function, with respect to the various narrative coordinates, particularly for the improvement of Tobiah as character and the narrative shift of the main story line (with Tobiah becoming the central figure thereon).

4.2 Narrative Function of Tob 6 Tob 6’s elaborated poetics with all its specific literary, rhetorical, ideological and narrative components, besides illustrating its richness, delineates with precise contours its narrative function. In our view, Tobit’s travel story was devised not simply for achieving Tobiah’s acceptance of marriage with Sarah, but also with other three main scopes: as an inventory of Tobit’s main teachings; a prolepsis of the story’s second part; and a “catalyzer” of Tobiah’s maturation as character, needed for the narrative coherence of the rest of the story, in which he is made the leading figure.

4.2.1 An Inventory of Tobit’s Main Teachings Up to chapter 5, it is remarkable the number of themes, motifs and ideas that Tobit displays. The book’s main teachings, enacted in the autobiographical section (Tob  1–3), are restated then in Tobit’s discourse in chapter 4, which however includes ulterior additions. Tobit’s ideological catalogue is thus further

286 

 4 Poetics and narrative function of Tobit 6: Synthesis and conclusions

incremented. After such overwhelming thematic and ideological presentation, there follows the peculiar travel story of Tob 6. In it, as noted above, the narrator skillfully recalls most of Tobit’s main characters and arguments. In a creative and attractive manner, therefore, intertwining ideas while recalling characters and situations, in the frame of Tobiah’s interaction with the divine envoy in human disguise, colored with the presence of a dog and a fish, the narrator is able to recall and emphasize to the reader the book’s main teachings. The picturesque feature of Tob 6 certainly facilitates their remembrance and the narrator’s various rhetorical devices intensify the reader’s involvement with them. Thus, Tob 6’s pedagogical feature is ulteriorly manifested. Tobit in fact, is a sort of “manual” for Diaspora Israelites (especially for the youth), a sort of “identikit,” about how to live in such environment, to keep their social and religious traditions and to hand them on to the new generations.

4.2.2 A Programmatic Story In Tob 6, while recounting Tobiah’s travel with God-sent-angel, the narrator anticipates to the reader (prolepsis)18 the main narrative programme of the book’s second part; especially Sarah’s healing is reported to the reader with remarkable richness of details. Anticipated already in Tob 6:8, the angel specifies even further to Tobiah and to the reader (6:17–18), the manner in which Sarah’s healing process will come about.19 Thus the means by which both Tobit’s healing and Sarah’s deliverance would be brought about; the manner through which they would take place; and the agent who would perform the announced healings (Tobiah); with respect to Sarah’s deliverance, also the place and time in which they would occur are anticipated to the reader. From Tob 7 onwards, in fact to end of the book, is implemented such narrative programme.20

18 Prolepsis in effect is part of our author’s dynamics of anticipations, not coinciding with it simpliciter. Besides the narrator’s statement in 3:16–17, his anticipation of Tobit’s death in 14:2 to then recounts his last words at death bed; with the same procedure being followed regarding Tobiah’s (see 14:14–15); Tob 9:2 anticipating the recounting of 9:5–6; 9:3(4), the intermezzo scene of Tob 10-1-7; are emblematic examples of that dynamics. 19 A similar procedure is followed regarding Tobit’s healing process in 11:1.7.11–14. 20 “The hagiographer, with his reiterated prolepsis just as the final redactor of the Book of Job had done, wishes to reassure the reader immediately, letting him know that he is faced with a didactic drama with a happy ending, so that the story is always kept under the control of the watchful and provident divine wisdom, in addition, naturally to the narrative control of the careful redactor.” See Bellia, “From Tobit to Ben Sira”, 17.

4.2 Narrative Function of Tob 6 

 287

4.2.3 “Catalyzer” of Tobiah’s Maturation The peculiar process of Tobiah’s travel with the angel, marked with his encounter with the big fish, his concerns aroused and dissolved through his companion’s words and mostly through his free acceptance of marrying the demonic threatened daughter of Raguel, have somehow accelerated his maturation. Tob 6 in that regard functions as a sort of “catalyzer” of Tobiah’s maturation, to warrant the narrative coherence with his notable leading role in the rest of the story to its end. In light of Tob 1:8, his marriage with Sarah becomes a sign and expression of reaching manhood. Through the unexpected fish incident, Tobiah is led to face a deadly threatening alone which prepares him for the also unexpected and deadly threatening of demon Asmodeus implied in his involvement with Sarah. As the journey continues, Tobiah questions his companion about the strange items he was told to carry along, moved perhaps by the suspicion of his implication with it. The manner in which Raphael responds to him about the medicinal usefulness of the fish’s gall, heart and liver, implicitly confirms Tobiah’s suspicion. Through that double interaction, Tobiah’s capacity of discernment and judgment and independent acting seems educated. The manner that the narrator articulates the angel’s persuasive discourse in the next sequence with Tobiah’s reply in between, continuing that process, appeals then to his will power and decision, and also to his sensibility. Tob 6’s main issue is finally Tobiah’s marriage with Sarah. Marriage with all its implications, yesterday as today, is a demanding step. Marked with imperatives and “divine passives,” a mention of the book of Moses and even to a death penalty according to it, Azariah’s argumentation focused on the theme of endogamy, creates also a psychological incisiveness, touching and arousing Tobiah’s deepest values (filial and religious piety). Such narrative and argumentative process, preparing Tobiah for and aiming at his free acceptance of the divine plan regarding marriage with Sarah, emerges thus as a real “exercise of growth.” Having pondered attentively his companion’s arguments and interacted actively with him during that travel, Tobiah finally decides positively to face the demonic threatening and “take” Sarah as his wife, even before meeting her. Tobiah’s motivation for such acceptance being the girl’s fitting in his father’s enjoined command of endogamy, underscores once more that narrative process and purpose. Tobiah’s command to Azariah to take him “directly” to Raguel’s house in 7:1, and his taking the whole marriage process into his hands, narratively underscores and emblematically depicts his characterological improvement, which manifests itself once and again thereon. Tobit’s plight, which goes far beyond his physical blindness, will also benefit from his son’s maturation.

Bibliography Abrahams, I. “Tobit and Genesis”, JQR 5/2 (1893) 348–350. Abrahams, I. “Tobit’s Dog”, JQR 3/1 (1889) 288. Achenbach, G. M. “Iconography of Tobias and the Angel in Florentine Painting of the Renaissance”, Marsyas 3 (1943) 71–86. Ackerman-Lieberman, P. – R. Zalashik, eds. A Jew’s Best friend? The Image of the Dog Throughout Jewish History (Brighton 2013) Adler, C. – M. Grunwald, “Marriage Cerimonies”, Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. (New York – London 1906) 340–347. Aletti, J.-N. et al. Vocabulaire raisonné de l’exégèse biblique : les mots, les approaches, les auteurs (Paris 2003) Alonso Schökel, L. L’arte di raccontare la storia. Storiografia e poetica narrativa nella Bibbia (Lectio 6; Cinisello Balsamo (MI) 2013) Alonso Schökel, L. – M. Iglesias González, Rut, Tobías, Judit, Ester (Los Libros Sagrados 8; Madrid 1973) Alonso Schökel, L. – J. L. Sicre Diaz, Profetas. II. Ezequiel, Doce Profetas Menores, Baruc, Daniel y Carta de Jeremías (Madrid 1987) Alter, R. The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York 1981) Angelini, A. “L’imaginaire comparé du démoniaque dans les traditions de l’Israël ancien : le bestiaire d’Esaïe dans la Septante”, Entre dieux et hommes: anges, démons et autres figures intermédiaires Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 19 et 20 mai 2014 (éds. T. Röhmer – B. Dufour – F. Pfitzmann – C. Uehlinger) (OBO 286; Göttingen 2017) 116–234. Arnald, R. “A Commentary Upon the Book of Tobit”, A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old and New Testament and the Apocrypha. (ed. J. R. Pitman) vol. 4. (London 1822) 610–642. Attardo, S. “Irony as Relevant Inappropriateness”, JoP 32 (2000) 793–826. Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words (Edited by J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà) (Cambridge, Massachusetts 1975) Bailey, M. D. “Diabolic Magic”, The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West. From Antiquity to the Present (ed. D. Collins) (Cambridge – New York – Melbourne 2015) chap. 12, 361–392. Balz, H. R. – G. J. Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids MI 1990) Bar-Efrat, S. Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield 1989) Barclay, J. M. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora. From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Edinburgh 1996) Barker, M. “The Archangel Raphael in the Book of Tobit”, Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. R. J. Bredin) (LSTS 55; 2006) 118–128. Barr, J. “Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age”, The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age (ed. W. D. Davies – L. Finkelstein)Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age. (Cambridge – New York – Melbourne 1989) chap. 3, 79–114. Barr, J. “The Question of Religious Influence: The Case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity”, JAAR 53/2 (1985) 201–235.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110615074-007

290 

 Bibliography

Barría Iroumé, C. “El matrimonio de Tobías y la sexualidad. Un estudio psicológico”, Teología y vida 45 (2004) 675–697. Barton, G. A. “The Origin of the Names of Angels and Demons in the Extra- Canonical Apocalyptic Literature to 100 A.D.” JBL 31/4 (1912) 156–167. Baslez, M.-F. “Le roman de Tobit. Un judaïsme entre deux mondes”, Le judaïsme à l’aube de l’ère chrétienne. XVIIIe Congrès de l’ACFEB (Lyon, septembre 1999 (ed. P. Abadie – J.-P. Lémonon) (LDiv 186; Paris 2001) 29–50. Basson, A. “Dog Imagery in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East”, JSem 15/1 (2006) 92–106. Bauckham, R. J. “Tobit as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel”, Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. R. J. Bredin) (LSTS 55; 2006) 140–164. Bauer, W. et al. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago – London 2000) Baumgarten, A. I. “Hellenism and Judaism Before and After World War II. Two Case Studies – A. D. Momigliano and E. J. Bickerman”, “Follow the wise”. Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of Lee I. Levine (ed. Z. Weiss – O. Irshai – J. Magness – S. Schwartz) (Winona Lake, Ind. 2010) 3–24. Baumgarten, A. I. “Were the Greeks Different? If so, How and Why?”, Shem in the Tents of Japhet. Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism (ed. J. L. Kugel) (JSJS 74; Leiden 2002) 1–10. Beardsley, M. C. Aesthetics. Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism (New York – Chicago – San Francisco – Atlanta 1974) Beekes, R. S. P. Etymological Dictionary of Greek (IEED 10; Leiden 2010) Bellia, G. “From Tobit to Ben Sira. From Nostalgia to the Recovery of Fatherhood”, Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ed. A. Passaro) (DLCY 2012/2013; 2012) 1–39. Bender, A. P. “Beliefs, Rites, and Customs of the Jews, Connected with Death, Burial, and Mourning”, JQR 6/2 (1894) 317–347. Berger, K. Exegese des Neuen Testaments. Neue Wege vom Text zur Auslegung (Uni-Taschenbücher 658; Heidelberg 1984) Bergh, R. Van der. “Unfocused Narrative Space in Tobit 1.1–2.14”, Constructions of Space V. Place, Space and Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean World. (Library of Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Studies 576; 2013) 214–225. Berlin, A. “The Book of Esther and Ancient Storytelling”, JBL 120/1 (2001) 3–14. Berner, C. “The Four (or Seven) Archangels in the First Book of Enoch and Early Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period”, Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings. Origins, Development and Reception (ed. F. V. Reiterer – T. Nicklas – K. Schöpflin) (DCLY 2007; Berlin – New York (NY) 2007) 395–411. Bernstein, M. J. “Divine Titles and Epithets and the Sources of the ‘Genesis Apocryphon’”, JBL 128/2 (2009) 291–310. Beyer, K. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer : samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, Deutsch-aramäische Wortliste, Register. Band 1 (Göttingen 1994) Beyer, K. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, Deutsch-aramäische Wortliste, Register (Göttingen 2004)

Bibliography 

 291

Beyerle, S. “‘If you preserve your faith...’ – Hellenistic Attitudes Towards Religion in Pre-Maccabean Times”, ZAW 118/2 (2006) 250–263. Biberger, B. “Unbefriedigende Gegenwart und ideale Zukunft: gesamtisraelitische Heilsperspektiven in den letzten Worten Tobits (Tob 14)”, BZ 52/2 (2011) 265– 280. Bickell, G. “A Source of the Book of Tobit”, The Athenaeum 3291 (1890) 700. Bickerman, E. J. Four Strange Books of the Bible : Jonah. Daniel. Koheleth. Esther (New York 1967) Bickerman, E. J. The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, MA 1988) Bissell, E. C. The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, with Historical Introductions, a Revised Translation and Notes Critical and Explanatory (New York 1886) Blass, F. W. – A. Debrunner, – R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Cambridge 1961) Bobin, C. Le très-bas (Collection L’un et l’autre; 1992) Boccaccini, G. Roots of Rabbinic Judaism. An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI 2002) Bohak, G. Ancient Jewish Magic. A History (Cambridge – New York – Melbourne 2008) Bohak, G. – Y. Harari, – S. Shaked, eds. Continuity and Innovation in the Magic Tradition (Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 15; Leiden 2011) Bolyki, J. “Burial as an Ethical Task in the Book of Tobit, in the Bible and in the Greek Tragedies”, The Book of Tobit – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 89– 101. Bonora, A. Tobia: Dio è provvidenza (Comunità degli uomini; Padova 1993) Booth, W. C. A Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago – London 1975) Booth, W. C. The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago – London 1983) Borders, C. J. “Review of G. Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism. An Intellectual History from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids (MI) 2001)”, RBL 7 (2003). Botterweck, G. J. – H. Ringgren, – H.-J. Fabry, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI 1977–2006) Bow, B. A. – G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Patriarchy With a Twist: Men and Women in Tobit”, ”Women Like This”. New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco- Roman World (ed. A.-J. Levine) (Atlanta, GA 1991) 127–143. Bratcher, J. T. “Strong Odour and Other Parallels in the Book of Tobit and the Romance Sir Amadace”, Notes and Queries 54/4 (2007) 371–372. Braulik, G. “Weisheit, Gottesnähe und Gesetz. Zum Kerygma von Deuteronomium 4,5–8”, Studien zum Pentateuch. Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag (Hrsg. G. Braulik) (Wien – Freiburg – Basel 1977) 165–196. Bredin, M. R. J. “The Significance of Jonah in Vaticanus (B) Tobit 14.4 and 8”, Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. R. J. Bredin) (LSTS 55; London 2006) 43–58. Brentanus, D. Die heilige Schrift des alten Testaments, Zwenten Theils, dritten Bands erste halfte, welche die Bücher Tobias, Judith und Esther enthalt (Frankfurt-am-Main 1803) Brockelmann, C. Lexicon Syriacum (Edinburgh – Berlin 1895) Brockington, L. H. A Critical Introduction to the Apocrypha (Studies in Theology; London 1961) Brooke, A. E. – N. McLean, – H. S. J. Thackeray, eds. The Old Testament in Greek. According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from other Uncial Manuscripts, With a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint. II. The Later Historical Books. III. Esther, Judith, Tobit (Cambridge 1940)

292 

 Bibliography

Brown, F. – S. R. Driver, – C. A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Peabody, Mass. 1996) Brunet, G. “L’hébreu kèlèb”, VT 35/4 (1985) 485–488. Bullard, R. A. – H. Hatton, A Handbook on Tobit and Judith (New York 2001) Burns, J. B. “Devotee or Deviate: The ”Dog” (”keleb”) in Ancient Israel as a Symbol of Male Passivity and Perversion”, Journal of Religion & Society 2 (2000) http://moses.creighton. edu/jrs/2000/2000–6.pdf. Calmet, A. Commentarius Literalis in Omnes Libros Veteris Testamentis vol. 5. (Paris 1791) Celada, D. De Commentarius Litteralis ac Moralis in Tobiae Historiam (Leyden 1644) Chantraine, P. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue greque: Histoire des mots (Paris 1968) Charles, R. H., ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English: with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books (Berkeley 2004) Chatman, S. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca May 1980) Christian, M. A. “Reading Tobit Backwards and Forwards: In Search of «Lost Halakhah»”, Henoch 28/1 (2006) 63–95. Chrysovergi, M. “Contrasting Views on Physicians in Tobit and Sirach”, JSP 21/1 (2011) 37–54. Claudel, P. L’histoire de Tobie et de Sara. Moralité en trois actes (Paris 1942) Coetzer, E. “Performing Susanna: Speech Acts and Other Performative Elements in Susanna”, Septuagint and Reception. Essays Prepared for the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa (Ed. J. Cook) (VTSup 127; Leiden – Boston, MA 2008) 347–360. Cohen, C. “Leviathan”, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (ed. A. Berlin) (New York, NY – Oxford 2011) 443–444. Collins, D. “Mapping the Entrails: The Practice of Greek Hepatoscopy”, AJP 129/3 (2008) 319–345. Collins, J. J. “Before the Canon: Scriptures in Second Temple Judaism”, Old Testament Interpretation Past, Present and Future. Essays in Honor of G. M. Tucker (Edinburgh 1995) 225–241. Collins, J. J. Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (The Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids (MI) 1983) Collins, J. J. “The Judaism of the Book of Tobit”, The Book of Tobit – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 23–40. Collins, J. J. “The Literature of the Second Temple Period”, The Oxford Handbook of the Biblical Studies (ed. M. Goodman) (2002) 53–78. Collins, J. J. “The Transformation of the Torah in Second Temple Judaism”, JSJ 43 (2012) 455–474. Collins, J. J. “Wisdom and Torah”, Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Ed. K.M.Hogan – M. Goff – E. Wasserman) (EJL 41; Atlanta, GA 2017) 59–80. Collins S.J., D. J., ed. The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West. From Antiquity to the Present (New York, NY 2015) Contini, R. – C. Grottanelli, Il saggio Ahiqar. Fortuna e trasformazioni di uno scritto sapienziale. Il testo più antico e le sue versioni (StBib 148; Brescia 2005) Coogan, M. D., ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible (Oxford – New York 2011) Couraud-Lalanne, S. “Récit d’un τελος ἐρωτικον: réflexions sur le statut des jeunes dans le roman de Chariton d’Aphrodisias”, REG 111/2 (1998) 518–550.

Bibliography 

 293

Cousland, J. R. “Tobit: A Comedy in Error?”, CBQ 65/4 (2003) 535–553. Crawford, J. S. “Caleb the Dog : How a Biblical Good Guy Got a Bad Name”, BibRev 20/2 (2004) 20–27,45. Cresswell, R. Aristotle’s History of Animals. In Ten Books (London 1902) Cryer, F. H. Divination in Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Environment. A Socio-Historical Investigation (JSOT.SS 142; Sheffield 1994) Culpepper, R. A. “Designs for the Church in the Imagery of John 21:1–14”, Imagery in the Gospel of John (eds. J. Frey – J. G. Van Der Watt – R. Zimmermann) (WUNT 200; Tübingen 2006) 369–402. Curtis, A., ed. Oxford Bible Atlas (Oxford – New York 2007) Dan, J. – S. L. Schwarz, “Asmodeus”, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (ed. A. Berlin) (New York (NY) 2011) 77. Dancy, J. C. The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha. Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Additions to Daniel and Prayer of Manasseh (CBCNEB; Cambridge 1972) David, N. “Burial in the Book of Tobit and in Qumran”, The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context. Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures (ed. A. Lange – E. Tov – M. Weingold) (VTSup 140; Leiden 2011) II 489–500. Davidson, J. “Fish, Sex and Revolution in Athens”, ClassQ 43/1 (1993) 53–66. Deines, R. “Josephus, Solomo und die von Gott verliehene τέχνη gegen die Dämonen”, Die Dämonen : die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt = Demons : The Demonology of Israelite- Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment (Hrsg. A. Lange – H. Lichtenberger – K.F. D. Römheld) (Tübingen 2033) 365– 394. Deist, F. “A Note on the Narrator’s Voice in Gen 37,20–22”, ZAW 108 (1996) 621– 622. Delcor, M. “Jewish Literature in Hebrew and Aramaic in the Greek Era”, The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age (ed. W. D. Davies – L. Finkelstein) (Cambridge – New York – Melbourne 1989) 352–384. Deselaers, P. Das Buch Tobit : Studien zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Theologie (OBO 43; Göttingen 1982) Di Lella, A. A. “A Study of Tobit 14:10 and Its Intertextual Parallels”, CBQ 71/3 (2009) 497–506. Di Lella, A. A. “The Book of Tobit and the Book of Judges: An Intertextual Analysis”, Henoch 22 (2000) 197–206. Di Lella, A. A. “The Deuteronomic background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob 14:3–11”, CBQ 41/3 (1979) 380–389. Di Lella, A. A. “Tobit 4,9 and Romans 9,18: An Intertextual Study”, Bib 90/2 (2009) 260–263. Di Lella, A. A. “Two Major Prayers in the Book of Tobit”, Prayer from Tobit to Qumran. Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5–9 July 2003 (eds. R. Egger-Wenzel – J. Corley) (DCLY 2004; Berlin 2004) 95–115. Di Pede, E. “Enqut̂e sur l’identité du narrateur du livre de Tobit”, Révéler les oeuvres de Dieu. Lecture narrative du livre de Tobie (éd. E. Di Pede – C. Lichtert – D. Luciani – C. Vialle – A. Wénin) (Le livre et le rouleau 46; Namur – Paris 2014) 141–155. Di Pede, E. et al. Révéler les oeuvres de Dieu. Lecture narrative du livre de Tobie (Le livre et le rouleau 46; Namur – Paris 2014) Diamond, E. “Wrestling the Angel of Death: Form and Meaning in Rabbinic Tales of Death and Dying”, JSJ 26/1 (1995) 76–92. Dickie, M. W. Magic and Magicians in Greek Roman World (London 2003)

294 

 Bibliography

Dimant, D. “The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah”, The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumram (ed. D. Dimant – R. G. Kratz) (FAT 35/2; Tübingen 2009) 121–143. Dimant, D. “The Library of Qumran in Recent Scholarship”, The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a Library (ed. S. White Crawford – C. Wassen) (STDJ 116; Leiden – Boston, MA 2016) 7–14. Dimant, D. “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha”, Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M. Mulder – H. Sysling) (CRINT 2; Assen 1988) 379–419. Dimant, D. “The Family of Tobit”, With Wisdom as a Robe. Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich (ed. K. D. Dobos – M. Köszeghy) (Hebrew Bible Monographs 21; Sheffield 2009) 157–162. Dion, P.-E. “Raphaël l’Exorciste”, Bib 57 (1976) 399–413. Doignon, J. “Tobie et le poisson dans la littérature et l’iconographie occidentales (IIIe-Ve siècle), du symbolisme funéraire à une exégèse christique.” RHR 190 (1976) 113–126. Doré, D. Le Livre de Tobit ou Le secret du roi (Cahiers Évangile 101; Paris 1997) Dozeman, T. B. “Geography and History in Herodotus and in Ezra-Nehemiah”, JBL 122/3 (2003) 449–466. Drawnel, H. An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran. A New Interpretation of the Levi Document (JSJS 86; Leiden 2004) Dreifuss, G. “The Binding of Isaac. Genesis 22 – The Akedah”, JAP 20/1 (1975) 50–56. Drewermann, E. Der gefahrvolle Weg der Erlösung. Die Tobit-Legende tiefenpsychologisch gedeutet (Spektrum 4165; Freiburg i. B. 1993) Drewermann, E. – I. Neuhaus, Voller Erbarmen rettet er uns. Die Tobit-Legende tiefenpsychologisch gedeutet (Freiburg im Breisgau 1985) Driussi, G. M. Il Libro di Tobia nella letteratura cristiana antica (I-V secolo) (Diss. Pontificia Università Lateranense; Roma 2003) Durante, C. La Sacra Storia Antica della Bibbia. Volume 5 (Roma 1749) Eco, U. Lector in fabula. La cooperazione interpretativa nei testi narrativi (Tascabili Bompiani 27; Milano 2010) Eco, U. Six Walks in the Fictional Woods (The Charles Eliot Norton Lecture – 1993; Cambridge, MA – London 1994) Eco, U. The Role of the Reader. Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington, IND 1984) Edelman, D. “Living with Ancestral Spirits in Judah in the Iron Age and Persian Period”, Entre dieux et hommes: anges, démons et autres figures intermédiaires Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 19 et 20 mai 2014 (OBO 286; Göttingen 2017) 135–171. Edrey, M. “Dog Cult in Persian Period Judea”, A Jew’s Best friend? The Image of the Dog Throughout Jewish History (eds. P. Ackerman-Lieberman – R. Zalashik) (Brighton 2013) 12–35. Edrey, M. “The Dog Burials at Achaemenid Ashkelon Revisited”, Tel Aviv 35/2 (2008) 267–282. Efthimiadis-Keith, H. “The Significance of Food, Eating, Death and Burial in the Book of Tobit”, JSem 22 (2013) 553–578. Efthimiadis-Keith, H. “Structural and Psychological Coherence in the Book of Tobit”, Construction, Coherence and Connotations. Studies on the Septuagint, Apocryphal and Cognate Literature (ed. P. J. Jordaan – N. P. L. Allen) (DCLS 34; Berlin – New York (NY) 2016) 149–164.

Bibliography 

 295

Egger-Wenzel, R. “Die Individualisierung des Exodusgeschehens im Buch Tobit”, Exodus. Rezeptionen in deuterokanonischer und frühjüdischer Literatur (Hrsg. J. Gärtner – B. Schmitz) (Berlin – Boston 2016) 131–144. Ego, B. Buch Tobit (JSHRZ 2/6; Gütersloh 1999) Ego, B. “«Das Licht Gottes»: Metaphern in der Tobiterzählung”, The Metaphorical Use of Language in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ed. M. Witte – S. Behnke) (DCLY 2014/2015; Berlin – New York (NY) 2015) 59–73. Ego, B. “Death and Burial in the Tobit Narration in the Context of the Old Testament Tradition”, The Human Body in Death and Resurrection (ed. T. Nicklas – F. V. Reiterer – J. Verheyden). (DCLY 2009; Berlin 2009) 87–103. Ego, B. “‘Denn er liebt Sie’ (Tob 6,15 Ms. 319): Zur Rolle des Dämons Asmodäus in der TobitErzählung”, Die Dämonen – Demons. Die Dämonologie der israelitischjüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (Hrsg. A. Lange – H. Lichtenberger – D. Römheld) (Tübingen 2003) 309–317. Ego, B. “Die Vertreibung des Dämons Admodäeus. “Magie” in der Tobiterzählung”, Zauber und Magie im antiken Palästina und in seiner Umwelt. Kolloquium des Deutschen Vereins zur Erforschung Palästinas, 14.–16.11.2014, Mainz (Hrsg. J. Kamlah-Idan – R. Schafer – M. Witte) (ADPV 46; 2017) 381–408. Ego, B. “The Figure of the Angel Raphael According to his Farewell Address in Tob 12:6–20”, Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings. Origins, Development and Reception (ed. F. V. Reiterer – T. Nicklas – K. Schöpflin) (DCLY 2007; Berlin 2007) 239–253. Ego, B. “Tobit and Tobias: A Model for an Ideal Father-Son Relationship”, Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ed. A. Passaro) (DCLY 2012–2013; Berlin – New York 2012) 77–86. Ego, B. “Tobits weisheitliches Vermächtnis (Tob 4): narratologische und theologische Aspekte”, Weisheit als Lebensgrundlage. Festschrift für Friedrich V. Reiterer zum 65. Geburtstag (Hrsg. R. Egger-Wenzel – K. Schöpflin – J. F. Diehl) (Berlin 2013) 95–122. Eidevall, G. “Spatial Metaphors in Lam 3:1–9”, Metaphor in the Bible (BETL 187; Leuven; Paris; Dudley 2005) 133–137. Engel, H. “Auf zuverlässigen Wegen und in Gerechtigkeit : religiöses Ethos in der Diaspora nach dem Buch Tobit”, Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Für Norbert Lohfink SJ (Hrsg. G. Braulik) (Freiburg i. B. 1993) 83–100. Engel, H. “Das Buch Tobit”, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Hrsg. E. Zenger) (KSTh 1; Stuttgart 1998) 246–265. Ennemoser, J. The History of Magic (London 1854) Eusebius of Caesarea, Contra Hieroclem (PG 795–868). Evans, A. H. M. “Angelic Mediation in the Book of Tobit: A Shift in the Deuteronomic Paradigm?”, Construction, Coherence and Connotations. Studies on the Septuagint, Apocryphal and Cognate Literature (ed. P. J. Jordaan – N. P. L. Allen) (DCLS 34; 2016) 133–148. Evans, C. A. “Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus”, JSHJ 3/2 (2005) 233–248. Eynde, S. M. L. Van den. “One Journey and One Journey Makes Three: The Impact of the Readers’ Knowledge in the Book of Tobit”, ZAW 117/2 (2005) 273–280. Eynde, S. Van den. “Tobit”, De Bijbel Literair (ed. J. Fokkelman – W. Weren) (Zoetermer – Kapellen 2003) 447–456. Eynde, S. M. L. Van den. “Prayer as Part of Characterization and Plot: An Analysis of Its Narrative Function in Tobit 3”, Analyse Narrative et Bible. Deuxième Colloque International

296 

 Bibliography

du RRENAB, Louvain-la-Neuve, Avril 2004 (éd. C. Focante – A. Wénin) (BETL 191; Leuven 2005) 527–536. Fabry, H.-J. – U. Dahmen, – G. J. Brooke, eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten (Stuttgart 2013) Fassbeck, G. “Tobit’s Religious Universe Between Kinship Loyalty and the Law of Moses”, JSJ 36/2 (2005) 173–196. Feldman, L. H. “Hebraism and Hellenism Reconsidered”, Judaism 43/2 (1994) 115– 126. Feldman, L. H. Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (JSJS 107; Leiden 2006) Fernández Marcos, N. “Review of R. Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit”, JSJ 16/2 (1985) 267–269. Fierro, G. “Tobías”, Ester, Judit, Rut, Tobías. Apócrifos del Antiguo Testamento (BBB 12; Estella (Navarra) 2009) 193–255. Fischer, Z. “Sacrificing Isaac: A New Interpretation”, JBQ 35/3 (2007) 173–178. Fitzmyer, J. A. “The Aramaic and Hebrew Fragments of Tobit from Qumran Cave 4”, CBQ 57/4 (1995) 655–675. Fitzmyer, J. A. Tobit (CEJL; Berlin 2003) Fitzmyer, J. A. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (SDSS; Grand Rapids, MI 2000) Fokkelman, J. P. “Jacob as a Character”, Analyse Narrative et Bible. Deuxième Colloque International du RRENAB, Louvain-la-Neuve, Avril 2004 (éd. C. Focante – A. Wénin) (Leuven 2005) 3–17. Freedman, D. N., ed. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York 1992) Freudenstein, E. G. “Sabbath Fish”, Judaism 29.4 (1980) 418. Frevel, C., ed. Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period (LHBOTS 547; London 2012) Frey-Anthes, H. “Praise, Petition, Lament – and Back: On the Significance of Lament in the Book of Tobit”, Evoking Lament. A Theological Discussion (ed. E. Harasta – B. Brock) (London 2009) 136–149. Frey-Anthes, H. Unheilsmächte und Schutzgenien, Antiweisen und Grenzgänger. Vorstellungen von »Dämonen« im alten Israel (OBO 227; Göttingen 2007) Friedman, M. A. “Tamar, a Symbol of Life: The “Killer Wife Superstition in the Bible and Jewish Tradition”, AJSReview 15/1 (1990) 23–61. Fries, C. “Das Buch Tobit und die Telemachie”, ZWT 53 (1911) 54–87. Fritzsche, O. F. Kurzgefasstes exegestisches Handbuch zu den Apocryphen des Alten Testamentes vol. 2. (Leipzig 1853) Fröhlich, I. “‘Because He Loves Her...’ The Figure of the Demon in the Book of Tobit”, Studies in Memory of Alexander Fodor (ed. K. Dévényi) (The Arabist 37; Budapest 2016) 25–36. Fröhlich, I. “Demons and Illness in Second Temple Judaism: Theory and Practice”, Demons and Illness from Antiquity to the Early-Modern Period (S. Bhayron – C. Rider) (MRLA 5; Leiden – Boston, MA 2017) chap. 6, 81–96. Fröhlich, I. “Tobit against the Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, The Book of Tobit – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 55–70. Fröhlich, I. “Creation in the Book of Tobit”, Theologies of Creation in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. In Honour of Hans Klein (ed. T. Nicklas – K. Zamfir) (Berlin – New York 2010) 35–50.

Bibliography 

 297

Fröhlich, I. “«Invoke at any time...» : Apotropaic Texts and Belief in Demons in the Literature of the Qumran Community”, BN 137 (2008) 41–74. Fröhlich, I. “Medicine and Magic in Genesis Apocryphon : Ideas on Human Conception and Its Hindrances”, RevQ 25/2 (2011) 177–198. Fröhlich, I. “Wisdom in the Book of Tobit”, Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals. Papers of the Jubilee Meeting of the International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books (ed. G. G. Xeravits – Zsengellér – X. Szabó) (DCLS 22; Berlin ; Boston 2014) 247–259. Galdos, R. Commentarius in librum Tobit (CSS 12/1; Paris 1930) Gamberoni, J. “Das ”Gesetz des Mose” im Buch Tobias”, Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag (Wien 1977) 227–242. Gardner, G. E. “Let Them Eat Fish: Food for the Poor in Early Rabbinic Judaism”, JSJ 45 (2014) 250–270. Genette, G. Figures vol. 3. (Poetique; Paris 1999) Genette, G. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (Ithaca Aug. 1983) Gerould, G. H. The Greatful Dead: The History of a Folk Story (Publications of the Fok-Lore Society 60; London 1907) Gesenius, H. F. W. – E. F. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Oxford 1956) Ginzberg, L. The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, PA 1925) Glare, P. G. W., ed. Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford 1968) Glason, T. F. “The Main Source of Tobit”, ZAW 71 (1959) 275–277. Glesinger, L. “Le chien dans la médecine et dans la superstition médicale juives”, Mélanges d’histoire de la médecine hébraïque. Études choisies de la “Revue d’histoire de la médecine hébraïque” (1948–1985) (éds. G. Freudenthal – S. Kottek) (Leiden 2003) 485–495. Goodenough, E. R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Vol. 5–6: Fish, Bread, and Wine (Bollingen Series 37; New York 1956) Goodenough, E. R. Jewish symbols in the Greco-Roman period. Vol. 2: The archaeological evidence from the Diaspora (Bollingen Series 37; New York 1953) Gordon, C. H. “An Aramaic Incantation”, AASOR 14 (1933/34) 141–144. Gordon, R. P. – K. J. Cathcart, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (The Aramaic Bible 14; Edinburgh 1989) Grabbe, L. L. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Vol. 2: The Coming of the Greeks. The Early Hellenistic Period (335–175 BCE) (LSTS 68; London 2008) Grabbe, L. L. “Israel from the Rise of Hellenism to 70 C.E.” The Oxford Handbook of the Biblical Studies (ed. J. W. Rogerson – J. M. Lieu) (Oxford – New York 2006) 285–316. Grabbe, L. L. “Tobit”, Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (ed. J. D. G. Dunn) (Grand Rapids, MI 2003) 736–747. Greenfield, J. C. “Ahiqar in the Book of Tobit”, De la Tôrah au Messie. Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles (ed. M. Carrez – J. Doré – P. Grelot) (Paris 1981) 329–336. Gregory, B. C. “Review of M. Hallermayer, Text und Überlieferung des Buches Tobit (DCLS 3; Berlin – New York 2008)”, RBL 13 (2011) 242–244. Gregory, B. C. “The Marriage of Tobias and Sarah in the Venerable Bede’s Commentary on Tobit”, Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ed. A. Passaro) (DCLY 2012/2013; 2013) 547–558.

298 

 Bibliography

Grelot, P. “Les noms de parenté dans le livre de ‘Tobie’”, RevQ 17 (1996) 327–337. Groot, H. de. Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum (Hallae 1776) Grossman, M. L. “Magic”, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (ed. A. Berlin) (New York (NY) 2011) 463–464. Gruen, E. S. Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1998) Gruen, E. S. The Construct of Identity. Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History (DCLS 29; Berlin – New York (NY) 2016) Haider, P. W. “Synkretismus zwischen griechisch-römischen und orientalischen Gottheiten”, Religionsgeschichte Syriens : von der Frühzeit bis zur Gegenwart (Stuttgart- Berlin-Köln 1996) 145–194. Hallermayer, M. Text und Überlieferung des Buches Tobit (DCLS 3; Berlin – New York, NY 2008) Hamidović, D. “Ilness and Healing through Spell and Incantantion in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, Demons and Illness from Antiquity to the Early-Modern Period (S. Bhayron – C. Rider) (MRLA 5; 2017) chap. 7, 97–110. Hanhart, R. Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit (MSU 17; Göttingen 1984) Hanhart, R. Tobit (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum VIII,5; Göttingen 1983) Harari, Y. “What is a Magical Text? Methodological Reflections Aimed at Redefining Early Jewish Magic”, Officina Magica : Essays on the Practice of Magic in Antiquity (Ed. S. Shaked) (Studies in Judaica 4; Leiden – Boston, MA 2005) 91–124. Harper, K. “Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm”, JBL 131/2 (2012) 363–383. Harrington, D. J. Invitation to the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids MI 1999) Hart, T. “Tobit in the Art of the Florentine Renaissance”, Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. R. J. Bredin) (LSTS 55; London 2006) 72–89. Hatch, E. – H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) (Grand Rapids (MI) 1998) Haupt, P. “Asmodeus”, JBL 40/3–4 (1921) 174–178. Haupt, P. “Tobit’s Blindness and Sara’s Hysteria”, PAPS 60/2 (1921) 71–95. Hayes, C. “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources”, HTR 92/1 (1999) 3–36. Hee-Sook, B. “Elijah’s Magic in the Drought Narrative: Form and Function”, BN 169 (2016) 11–26. Heiligenthal, R. “Werke der Barmherzigkeit oder Almosen? Zur Bedeutung von eleemosyne”, NovT 25/4 (1983) 289–301. Held, J. S. Rembrandt and the Book of Tobit (Northampton, Mass. 1964) Hengel, M. Jews, Greeks and Barbarians. Aspects of the Hellenization of Judaism in the Pre-Christian Period (London 1980) Hengel, M. Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period (Philadelphia 1974) Hengel, M. “The Interpenetration of Judaism and Hellenism in the Pre-Maccabean Period”, The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age (ed. W. D. Davies – L. Finkelstein) (Cambridge – New York – Melbourne 1989) 167– 228. Hengel, M. “The Political and Social History of Palestine From Alexander to Antiochus III (333–187 B.C.E.)” The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age (ed. W. D. Davies – L. Finkelstein) (Cambridge – New York – Melbourne 1989) 35–78. Hengel, M. “The Scriptures and Their Interpretation in Second Temple Judaism”, The Aramaic Bible. Targums in their Historical Context (ed. D.R.G. Beattie – M.J. McNamara) (JSOT.SS 66; Sheffield 1994) 158–175.

Bibliography 

 299

Hezser, C. Jewish Travel in Antiquity (TSAJ 144; Tübingen 2011) Hieke, T. “Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, Genesis, and Ezra-Nehemiah”, The Book of Tobit – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 103–120. Hieronymus, Praef. in Tob. (PL 29, 25–26). Himmelfarb, M. “Elias Bickerman on Judaism and Hellenism”, The Jewish Past Revisited : Reflections on Modern Jewish Historians. (Studies in Jewish Culture and Society; New Haven – London 1998) 199–211. Hieronymus, Praef. in Tob. (PL 29, 25–26). Himmelfarb, M. “The Torah Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Difference in Antiquity”, Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context (ed. C. Bakhos) (JSJS 95; Leiden 2005) 113–129. Hindes Groome, F. “Tobit and Jack the Giant-Killer”, Folklore 9/3 (1898) 226–244. Hirsch, E. G. et al. “Leviathan and Behemoth”, Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. (New York – London 1906) 37–39. HOCK, R. F. “Homer in Greek-Roman Education”, Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (ed. D.R.MacDonald) (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Harrisburg PA 2001) 56–77. Hofmann, N. J. “Die Rezeption des Dtn im Buch Tobit, in der Assumptio Mosis und im 4. Esrabuch”, Das Deuteronomium (Hrsg. G. Braulik) (OBS 23; Frankfurt am Main 2003) 311–342. Horst, P. W. Van der. “Pseudo-Phocylides, Sentences”, Outside the Bible. Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (ed. L. H. Feldman – J. Kugel – L. H. Schiffman) (Philadelphia 2013) III 2353–2361. Humphreys, H. “Magic and Medicine”, Antiquity 27.107 (1953) 144–148. Hutton, J. M. “‘Abdi-Asirta, the Slave, the Dog’: Self-Abasement and Invective in the Amarna Letters, the Lachish Letters, and 2 Sam 3:8”, ZAH 15–16 (2002) 2–18. Icard, N. – A.-V. Szabados, – P. Linant de Bellefonds, “La pêche dans le monde Grec et Roman”, Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum (ed. J.-C. Balty) (Los Angeles, CA 2005) VI, 378–387. Iser, W. The Act of Reading. A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore 1980) Iser, W. The Implied Reader. Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (Baltimore – London 1975) Iustinianus, F. Tobias Explanationibus Historicis et Documentis Moralibus Illustratus (Antwerp 1629) Jackson, A. V. W. “Avesta, the Bible of Zoroaster”, The Biblical World 1/6 (1893) 420–431. Jacobs, N. S. “I Saw that the Delicacies Were Many”. A Commentary on Food and Eating in the Book of Tobit (Diss. Durham University; Durham (UK) 2007) Jacobs, N. S. “Scribal Innovations and the Book of Tobit: A Long Overdue Discussion”, Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls. John Collins at Seventy (ed. J. Baden – H. Najman – E. Tigchelaar) (JSJS 175; Leiden 2017) I 579–610. Jacobs, N. S. “”What About the Dog?” Tobit’s Mysterious Canine Revisited”, Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals. Papers of the Jubilee Meeting of the International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books (ed. G. G. Xeravits –Zsengellér – X. Szabó) (DCLS 22; Berlin, Boston 2014) 221–246. Jacobs, N. S. “‘You Did Not Hesitate to Get up and Leave the Dinner’: Food and Eating in the Narrative of Tobit with Some Attention to Tobit’s Shavuot Meal”, The Book of Tobit – Text,

300 

 Bibliography

Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 121–138. Jacobus, H. R. – A. K. De Hemmer Gudme, – P. Guillaume, eds. Studies on Magic and Divination in the Biblical World (Biblical Intersections 11; Piscataway, NJ 2013) Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York 1950) Jastrow Jr, M. Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria (American Lectures on the History of Religions; New York – London 1911) Jensen, H. J. L. “Family, Fertility and Foul Smell: Tobit and Judith”, Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. R. J. Bredin) (LSTS 55; 2006) 129–139. Jensen, R. M. “The Offering of Isaac in Jewish and Christian Tradition”, Biblical Interpretation 1/2 (1994) 85–110. Jeyes, U. “The «Palace Gate» of the Liver: A Study of Terminology and Methods in Babylonian Extispicy”, JCS 30/4 (1978) 209–233. Joüon, P. – T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (SubBi 14; Roma 2006) Kaiser, O. Die alttestamentlichen Apokryphen. Eine Einleitung in Grundzügen (Gütersloh 2000) Kalimi, I. “‘Go, I Beg You, Take Your Beloved Son and Slay Him!’ The Binding of Isaac in Rabbinic Literature and Thought”, RRJ 13/1 (2010) 1–35. Kanarek, J. “He Took the Knife: Biblical Narrative and the Formation of Rabbinic Law”, AJS Review 34/1 (2010) 65–90. Kant, L. H. The Interpretation of Religious Symbols in the Greco-Roman World. A Case Study of Early Christian Fish Symbolism (Volumes I-III) (Diss. Yale University; New Haven, CT 1993) Kaplan, K. J. “Isaac and Oedipus: A Re-Examination of the Father-Son Relationship”, Judaism 39/1 (1990) 73–81. Kaplan, K. J. “Isaac Versus Oedipus: An Alternative View”, JAAP 30/4 (2002) 707–717. Kasole Ka-Mungu, B. Des ténèbres à la lumière. La guérison dans le livre de Tobit (EHS.T XXIII/862; Frankfurt-am-Main 2008) Kellermann, U. Eheschlies̈ungen im frühen Judentum. Studien zur Rezeption der Leviratstora, zu den Eheschlies̈ungsritualen im Tobitbuch und zu den Ehen der Samaritanerin in Johannes 4 (DCLS 21; Berlin – München [u.a.] 2014) Kelly, D. The Conspiracy of Allusion. Description, Rewriting, and Authorship from Macrobius to Medieval Romance (Leiden – Boston – Köln 1999) Kiel, M. D. The “Whole Truth”. Rethinking Retribution in the Book of Tobit (LSTS 82; London – New York 2012) Kiel, M. D. “Tobit’s Theological Blindness”, CBQ 73/2 (2011) 281–98. Kiel, M. D. “Tobit and Moses Redux”, JSP 17/2 (2008) 83–98. Kim, H. C. P. “Jonah Read Intertextually”, JBL 126/3 (2007) 497–528. Kim, Y.-K. “In Search of the Narrator’s Voice: A Discourse Analysis of 2 Kings 18:13–16”, JBL 127/3 (2008) 477–489. Kirby, W. F. “A Source of the Book of Tobit”, The Athenaeum 3292 (1890) 738–39. Kittel, G. – G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI 1964–1976) Klutz, T., ed. Magic in the Biblical World. From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (LNTS 245; London – New York 2004) Koehler, L. – W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden – Boston – Köln 2001)

Bibliography 

 301

Kollmann, B. “Göttliche Offenbarung magisch-pharmakologischer Heilkunst im Buch Tobit”, ZAW 106/2 (1994) 289–299. Kottsieper, I. “‘Look, Son, What Nadab Did to Ahikaros...’: The Aramaic Ahiqar Tradition and Its Relationship to the Book of Tobit”, The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumram. (FAT 2. Reihe 35; Tübingen 2009) 145–167. Kugel, J. L. “Ancient Israelite Pedagogy and Its Survival in Second Temple Interpretations of Scripture”, Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Ed. K.M.Hogan – M. Goff – E. Wasserman) (EJL 41; Atlanta, GA 2017) 15–58. Kugel, J. L. Traditions of the Bible. A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA 1999) Lallemand, A. “Les Parfums dans le Roman Grec”, Le Monde du Roman Grec. Actes du colloque international tenu à l’École normale supérieure (Paris 17–19 décembre 1987) (ed. M.-F. Baslez – P. Hoffmann – M. Trédé) (Études de Littérature Ancienne 4; Paris 1992) 75–83. Lange, A. “Pre-Maccabean Literature from Qumran and the Hebrew Bible”, DSD 13/3 (2006) 277–305. Lange, A. – H. Lichtenberger, – K. D. Römheld, eds. Die Dämonen : die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt = Demons : The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment (Tübingen 2003) Lapide, C. A. Commentarius in Esdram, Nehemiam, Tobiam, Iudith, Esther et Machabaeos (Venice 1717) Larivaille, P. “L’analyse (morpho)logique du récit”, Poétique 19 (1974) 368–388. Lars, A. “The Greek δαίμων Between Mythos and Logos”, Die Dämonen : die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt = Demons : The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Liter- ature in Context of Their Environment (Hrsg. A. Lange – H. Lichtenberger – K.F. D. Römheld) (2003) 425–446. Larsson, K. “Intertextual Density, Quantifying Imitation”, JBL 133/2 (2014) 309– 331. Lee, D. A. The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel. The Interplay of Form and Meaning (JSOT.SS 95; Sheffield 1994) Leon-Dufour, X. “Towards a Symbolic Reading of the Fourth Gospel”, NTS 27/4 (1981) 439–456. Lévi, E. The History of Magic. Including a Clear and Precise Exposition of Its Procedure, Its Rites and Its Mysteries (Translated by Arthur Edward Waite) (London 1913) Levine, A.-J. “Redrawing the Boundaries : A New Look at ”Diaspora as Metaphor – Bodies and Boundaries in the Book of Tobit””, Tobit and Judith. The Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series) (ed. A. Brenner-Idan – H. Efthimiadis- Keith) (London-New York 2015) 3–22. Levine, A.-J. “Tobit: Teaching Jews How to Live in the Diaspora”, BibRev 8/4 (1992) 42–51 (64). Liddell, H. G. – R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. Ninth Edition with a Revised Supplement (New York 1996) Limburg, J. W. Hosea-Micah (Interpretation; Atlanta 1988) Littman, R. J. Tobit. The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus (SEPT; Leiden – Boston (MA) 2008) Loader, W. The Pseudepigrapha on Sexuality. Attitudes towards Sexuality in Apocalypses, Testaments, Legends, Wisdom, and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, MI 2011) Lorenz, B. “Bemerkungen zum Totenkult im Alten Testament”, VT 32/2 (1982) 229–234. Lorenz, B. “Bestattung und Totenkult im Alten Testament”, ZRG 42/1 (1990) 21 –31. Lust, J. – E. Eynikel, – K. Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Stuttgart 2003) Macatangay, F. M. “Acts of Charity as Acts of Remembrance in the Book of Tobit”, JSP 23/1 (2013) 69–84.

302 

 Bibliography

Macatangay, F. M. The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit (DCLS 12; Berlin 2011) Macatangay, F. M. “Election by Allusion: Exodus Themes in the Book of Tobit”, CBQ 76/3 (2014) 450–463. Macatangay, F. M. “Exile as Metaphor in the Book of Tobit”, RivBib 62/2 (2014) 176–192. Macatangay, F. M. “Mισθóς and Irony in the Book of Tobit”, Bib 94/4 (2013) 576–584. Macatangay, F. M. “The Wisdom Discourse of Tobit as Instruction in Torah”, BN 167 (2015) 99–111. MacDonald, D. R. “Tobit and the Odyssey”, Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (ed. D. R. MacDonald) (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Harrisburg, PA 2001) 11–40. Machiela, D. A. “Lord or God? Tobit and the Tetragrammaton”, CBQ 75 (2013) 463–472. Machiela, D. A. The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon. A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17 (STDJ 79; Leiden 2009) Machiela, D. A. – A. B. Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon: Toward a Family Portrait”, JBL 133/1 (2014) 111–132. Macumber, H. Angelic Intermediaries. The Development of a Revelatory Tradition (University of St. Michael’s College; Toronto 2012) Mann, S. T. Run, David, Run! An Investigation of the Theological Speech Acts of David’s Departure and Return (2 Samuel 14–20) (Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures; Winona Lake 2014) Mann, S. T. “‘You’re fired’: An Application of Speech Act Theory to 2 Samuel 15.23—16.14”, JSOT 33/3 (2009) 315–334. Margoliuth, J. P. S. – R. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary : Founded Upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith (Oxford 1903) Marguerat, D. L. – Y. Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories (London 1999) Marguerat, D. L. – Y. Bourquin, La Bible se raconte. Initiation à l’analyse narrative (Paris 1998) Martin, D. B. “When Did Angels Become Demons?”, JBL 129/4 (2010) 657–677. Matthews, V. H. “The Unwanted Gift: Implications of Obligatory Gift Giving in Ancient Israel”, Semeia 87 (1999) 91–104. Mazzinghi, L. “Ho cercato e ho esplorato”. Studi sul Qohelet (Bologna 2009) Mazzinghi, L., “La coppia nel libro di Tobia: fra tradizione e novità”, RSB 1/2 (2018) 55–80. Mazzinghi, L. “‘Non per passione, ma con verità’: un aspetto del matrimonio secondo Tb 8,7”, Bible et Terre Sainte. Mélanges Marcel Beaudry (ed. K. J. O’Mahony – J. E. Aguilar Chiu – M. Roger) (Frankfurt-am-Main 2008) 83–96. Mazzinghi, L. “«Poi fa’ posto al medico perché ti è necessario (Sir 38,1–15)»”, PSV 40 (1999) 65–74. Mazzinghi, L. “‘Sono stato mandato per metterti alla prova’ (Tb 12,13): La sofferenza dell’anziano Tobi”, PSV 55/1 (2007) 81–94. Mazzinghi, L. Tobia : Il cammino della coppia (Spiritualità Biblica; Magnano, BI 2004) Mazzinghi, L. Pentateuco sapienziale: Proverbi, Giobbe, Qohelet, Siracide, Sapienza. Caratteristiche letterarie e temi teologici (Testi e commenti; Bologna 2012) McCracken, D. “Narration and Comedy in the Book of Tobit”, JBL 114/3 (1995) 401–418. McDonald, L. M. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, MA 2007) Mebarki, F. – C. Grenache, “The Qumran Library”, NEA 63/3 (2000) 144–149. Menache, S. “Dogs and Human Beings: A Story of Friendship”, SocAnim 6/1 (1998) 67–86.

Bibliography 

 303

Menache, S. “From Unclean Species to Man’s Best Friend: Dogs in the Biblical, Mishnaic and Talmud Periods”, A Jew’s Best friend? The Image of the Dog Throughout Jewish History (eds. P. Ackerman-Lieberman – R. Zalashik) (Brighton 2013) 36–51. Milik, J. T. “La patrie de Tobie”, RB 73 (1966) 522–30. Miller, G. D. “Attitudes Toward Dogs in Ancient Israel: A Reassessment”, JSOT 32/4 (2008) 487–500. Miller, G. D. “Intertextuality in OT Research”, CBR 9/3 (2010) 283–309. Miller, G. D. Marriage in the Book of Tobit (DCLS 10; Berlin 2011) Miller, G. D. “Raphael the Liar: Angelic Deceit and Testing in the Book of Tobit”, CBQ 74 (2012) 492–508. Miller, G. D. “A Match Made in Heaven?: God’s Role in Marriage According to the Book of Tobit”, RivBib 57/2 (2009) 129–153. Miller, G. D. “‘I am my father’s only daughter’: Sarah’s Unbalanced Relationship with Her Parents in the Book of Tobit”, Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ed. A. Passaro) (DCLY 2012/2013; 2012) 87–106. Miller, G. “Peril and Deliverance and the Akedah-Sinai Narrative Structure”, JBQ 40/4 (2012) 247–252. Miller, H. “The Medicine of the Ancient Jews”, WJM 47/1 (1937) 38–40. Millett, P. “Isaac and Iphigeneia”, EJ 40/2 (2007) 116–131. Moltz, H. “God and Abraham in the Binding of Isaac”, JSOT 96 (2001) 59–69. Montgomery, J. A. Aramaic Incantation Texts From Nippur (New York (NY) 2011) Moore, C. A. “In Misery, Tobit Prays for Death (3:1–6)”, Prayer from Alexander to Constantine. A Critical Anthology (ed. M. C. Kiley) (London 1997) 43–47. Moore, C. A. Tobit : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 40A; New York 1996) Moore, C. A. “Tobit, Book of”, Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York – London – Toronto – Sidney – Auckland 1992) VI, 585–594. Morrison, C. E. “Il cuore perfetto (‫ )לבה שלימה‬di Abramo nella letteratura targumica e cristiana antica”. Abramo tra storia e fede. XLII Settimana Biblica Nazionale (Roma, 10–14 Settembre 2012) (ed. A. Passaro – A. Pitta) (RStB 1–2; Bologna 2014) pp. 431–452. Moulton, J. H. “The Iranian Background of Tobit”, The Expository Times 11/6 (1900) 257–260. Moulton, J. H. “The Magian Material of Tobit”, EZ 99 (1912) 332–40. Mujais, S. “The Future of the Realm: Medicine and Divination in Ancient Syro- Mesopotamia”, AJN 19 (1999) 133–139. Muraoka, T. A Greek ≈Hebrew/Aramaic Two-Way Index to the Septuagint (Leuven 2010) Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven 2009) Muraoka, T. Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint : Keyed to the Hatch-Redpath Concordance (Grand Rapids, MI 1998) Muraoka, T. A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic (ANES.SS 38; Leuven 2011) Muraoka, T. A Syntax of Septuagint Greek (Leuven 2016) Naveh, J. – S. Shaked, eds. Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem 1985) New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (ed. K. D. Sakenfeld) (Nashville, TN 20062009) Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 1 Enoch. A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia 33; Minneapolis, MN)

304 

 Bibliography

Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Jubilees”, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. M. E. Stone) (CRINT 2/2; Assen 1984) Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Review of M. Rabenau, Studien zum Buch Tobit (BZAW 220; Berlin 1994)”, JBL 116/2 (1997) 348–350. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “The Search for Tobit’s Mixed Ancestry. A Historical and Hermeneutical Odyssey”, RevQ 17 (1996) 339–349. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Tobit”, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. M. E. Stone) (CRINT 2/2; Assen 1984) 40–46. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Tobit”, Outside the Bible. Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (ed. L. H. Feldman – J. Kugel – L. H. Schiffman) (Philadelphia 2013) III 2631–2661. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Tobit, Genesis and the Odyssey: A Complex Web of Intertextuality”, Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (ed. D. R. MacDonald) (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Harrisburg, PA 2001) 41–55. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Tobit”, Harper’s Bible Commentary (ed. J. L. Mays) (New York, NY 1988) 791–803. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Tobit and Enoch: Distant Cousins with a Recognizable Resemblance”, SBLSP 27 (1988) 54–88. Nicklas, T. “”Denn der Herr kennt den Weg der Gerechten...” (Ps 1,6a): Lesespaziergänge vom Buch Tobit in den Psalter”, SJOT 19/1 (2005) 61–73. Nicklas, T. “Marriage in the Book of Tobit: A Synoptic Approach”, The Book of Tobit – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 139–154. Nicklas, T. “Thesen zur textlichen Vielfalt im Tobitbuch”, JSJ 34/2 (2003) 141–159. Niditch, S. – R. Doran, “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier”, JBL 96/2 (1977) 179–183. Niehr, H. Aramäischer Ahiqar (JSHRZ 2/2; Gütersloh 2007) Niehr, H. “Die Gestalt des Ahiqar Im Tobit-Buch”, (Deuteocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook; Berlin 2009) 57–76. Niehr, H. Religionen in Israels Umwelt. Einfürung in die nordwestsemitischen Religionen Syrien-Palästinas (Würzburg 1998) Niehr, H. “Zur Entstehung von Dämonen in der Religionsgeschichte Israels. Überlegungen zum Weg des Rešep durch die nordwestsemitische Religionsgeschichte”, Die Dämonen : die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt = Demons : The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment (Hrsg. A. Lange – H. Lichtenberger – K.F. D. Römheld) (Tübingen 2003) 84–106. Nihan, C. “Les habitants des ruins dans la Bible hébraïque”, Entre dieux et hommes: anges, démons et autres figures intermédiaires Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 19 et 20 mai 2014 (éds. T. Röhmer – B. Dufour – F. Pfitzmann – C. Uehlinger) (OBO 286; Göttingen 2017) 88–115. Nöldeke, T. “Die Texte des Buches Tobit”, Monatsberichte der königlichen preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1879) 45–79. Nongbri, B. “The Motivations of the Maccabees and Judean Rhetoric of Ancestral Tradition”, Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context (ed. C. Bakhos) (JSJS 95; Leiden 2005) 85–111. Novick, T. “Biblicized Narrative: On Tobit and Genesis 22”, JBL 126/4 (2007) 755– 764.

Bibliography 

 305

Novick, T. “Liturgy and the first person in narratives of the Second Temple period”, Prooftexts 32/3 (2012) 269–291. Nowell, I. “Irony in the Book of Tobit”, TBT 33 (1995) 79–83. Nowell, I. “Review of P. Deselaers, Das Buch Tobit : Studien zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Theologie”, CBQ 46/2 (1984) 306–307. Nowell, I. “The Book of Tobit: An Ancestral Story”, Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (ed. J. Corley – V. T. M. Skemp) (Washington, D.C. 2005) 3–13. Nowell, I. The Book of Tobit. Narrative Technique and Theology (Diss. Catholic University of America; Washington, DC 1983) Nowell, I. “The Narrator in the Book of Tobit”, SBLSP 27 (1988) 27–38. Nowell, I. “The “work” of Archangel Raphael”, Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings. Origins, Development and Reception (ed. F. V. Reiterer – T. Nicklas – K. Schöpflin) (DCLY 2007; Berlin – New York 2007) 227–253. Nünlist, R. “Narratological Concepts in the Greek Scholia”, Narratology and Interpretation (ed. J. Grethlein) (TCSV 4; Berlin – New York 2009) 63–83. Oeming, M. “Jewish Identity in the Eastern Diaspora in Light of the Book of Tobit”, Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period. Negotiating Identity in an International Context (O. Lipschitz – G. N. Knoppers – M. Oeming) (Winona Lake, Ind 2011) 545–561. Ortal-Paz, S. Jewish Love Magic: From Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages (MRLA 6; Leiden – Boston (MA) 2017) Osty, E. – J. Trinquet, Esdras-Néhémie-Tobie-Judith-Esther (La Bible 10; Paris 1970) Otzen, B. Tobit and Judith (Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 11; London 2002) Owens, J. E. “Asmodeus: A Less Than Minor Character in the Book of Tobit”, Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings. Origins, Development and Reception (ed. F. V. Reiterer – T. Nicklas – K. Schöpflin) (DCLY 2007; Berlin 2007) 277–290. Pardee, D. “Divinatory and Sacrificial Rites”, Near Eastern Archaeology 63/4 (2000) 232–234. Passen, A. P. Mediating the Divine. Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism (Diss. New York University; New York 2006) Pautrel, R. – M. Lefebvre, “Trois textes de Tobie sur Raphaël (Tob. V,22; III,16s; XII,12–15)”, RSR 39 (1951) 115–24. Pellicanus, C. Commentarium in libros sacros ecclesiasticos ... in librum Tobiae vol. 5. (Zurich 1535) Perrin, A. B. “An Almanac of Tobit Studies: 2000–2014”, CBR 13/1 (2014) 107–142. Perrin, A. B. “Capturing the Voices of Pseudepigraphic Personae: On the Form and Function of Incipits in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls”, DSD 20 (2013) 98–123. Perrin, A. B. “From Lingua Franca to Lingua Sacra: The Scripturalization of Tobit in 4QTobe”, VT 66 (2016) 117–132. Perrin, A. B. “Tobit’s Context and Contacts in the Qumran Aramaic Anthology”, JSP 25/1 (2015) 23–51. Petersen, D. L. “Genesis and Family Values”, JBL 124/1 (2005) 5–23. Pettazzoni, R. “La confession des péchés en Syrie aux époques préchrétiennes”, Mélanges Syriens offerts à M. René Dussaud (éd. R. Dussaud) (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 30/1; Paris 1939) 197–202. Pfann, S. “The Ancient “Library” or “Libraries” of Qumran: The Specter of Cave 1Q”, The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a Library (ed. S. White Crawford – C. Wassen) (STDJ 116; Leiden – Boston (MA) 2016) 168–216.

306 

 Bibliography

Pfeiffer, R. H. History of New Testament Times. With an Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York 1949) Polish, D. “Akedat Yitzhak – The Binding of Isaac”, Judaism 6/1 (1957) 17–21. Portier-Young, A. E. “Alleviation of Suffering in the Book of Tobit : Comedy, Community, and Happy Endings”, CBQ 63/1 (2001) 35–54. Portier-Young, A. E. “‘Eyes to the Blind’: A Dialogue Between Tobit and Job”, Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (ed. J. Corley – V. T. M. Skemp) (Washington, D.C. 2005) 14–27. Potts, D. “On Salt and Salt Gathering in Ancient Mesopotamia”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 27.3 (1984) 225–271. Pouchelle, P. “Kyropaideia versus Paideia Kyriou: The Semantic Transformation of Paideia and Cognates in the Translated Books of the Septuagint”, Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Ed. K.M.Hogan – M. Goff – E. Wasserman) (EJL 41; Atlanta, GA 2017) 101–134. Poulssen, N. Tobit vol. 2. (De Boeken van het Oude Testament 6; Roermond 1968) Preisendanz, K., ed. Papyri Graecae Magicae Die griechischen Zauberpapyri (Leipzig 1931) Priero, G. Tobia (La Sacra Bibbia; Torino – Roma 1953) Prioreschi, P. A History of Medicine. Vol. IV. Byzantine and Islamic Medicine (Omaha 2001) Pyper, H. S. “‘Sarah is a Hero’: Kierkegaard’s Reading of Tobit in Fear and Trembling”, Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. R. J. Bredin) (LSTS 55; London-New York 2006) 59–71. Quezada Del Río, J. “La situación de la mujer en el libro de Tobías”, Revista Bíblica 3/4 (2009) 149–180. Rabenau, M. Studien zum Buch Tobit (BZAW 220; Berlin 1994) Reimer, A. M. “Virtual Prision Breaks: Non-Escape Narratives and the Definition of «Magic»”, Magic in the Biblical World. From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (ed. T. Klutz) (JSNT.SS 245; London-New York 2004) 125–139. Reiterer, F. V. “An Archangel’s Theology: Raphael’s Speaking About God and the Concept of God in the Book of Tobit”, Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings. Origins, Development and Reception (ed. F. V. Reiterer – T. Nicklas – K. Schöpflin) (DCLY 2007; Berlin – Boston 2007) 255–275. Richard, M. N. Tobit’s Dog: A Novel (San Francisco 2014) Ricoeur, P. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, Tex 1976) Riva, M. A. et al. “«The City of Hepar»: Rituals, Gastronomy, and Politics at the Origins of the Modern Names for the Liver”, JHepatol 55 (2011) 1132– 1136. Rofé, A. Introduzione alla letteratura della Bibbia Ebraica. I. Pentateuco e libri storici (Introduzione allo studio della Bibbia; Brescia 2011) Röhmer, T. et al., eds. Entre dieux et hommes: anges, démons et autres figures intermédiaires. Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 19 et 20 mai 2014 (OBO 286; Göttingen 2017) Rota Scalabrini, P. “Il ”Libro”: l’Angelo necessario. Teologia della scrittura nel libro di Tobia”, StPat 50/3 (2003) 865–885. Ruppert, L. “Das Buch Tobias. Ein Modellfall nachgestaltender Erzählung”, Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch. Beiträge zur Septuaginta. Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler (Hrsg. J. Schreiner) (FzB 1; Würzburg 1972) 109–119. Russell, J. “God Is Good: On Tobit and Iran”, Iran & the Caucasus 5 (2001) 1–6.

Bibliography 

 307

Ryan, S. D. “The Psalms and the Book of Tobit”, Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (ed. J. Corley – V. T. M. Skemp) (Washington, D.C. 2005) 28–42. Sacchi, P. Storia del Secondo Tempio. Israele tra VI secolo a.C. e I secolo d.C. (Torino 2006) Sandnes, K. O. The challenge of Homer : School, Pagan Poets and Early Christianity (LNTS 400; London 2009) Sasson, J. M. Jonah. A New Translation With Introduction, Commentary and Interpretation (AB 24B; New York 1990) Schäfer, P. “Jewish Magic Literature in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages”, JJS 41.1 (1990) 75–91. Schäfer, P. “Magic and Religion in Ancient Judaism”, Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar and Symposium (Leiden 1997) 19–43. Schechter, S. – K. Kohler, “Dog”, The Jewish Encyclopedia. A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature and Customs of the Jewish People from Earliest Times to the Present Day (ed. I. Singer) (New York 1901) IV, 630–632. Schellenberg, R. S. “Suspense, Simultaneity, and Divine Providence in the Book of Tobit”, JBL 130/2 (2011) 313–327. Schmid, K. “Abraham’s Sacrifice: Gerhard von Rad’s Interpretation of Genesis 22”, Interpretation 62/3 (2008) 268–276. Schmidt, M., ed. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon (Jenae 1867) Schmitt, R. “Magie und rituelles Heilen im Alten Testament”, Zauber und Magie im antiken Palästina und in seiner Umwelt. Kolloquium des Deutschen Vereins zur Erforschung Palästinas, 14.–16.11.2014, Mainz (Hrsg. J. Kamlah-Idan – R. Schafer – M. Witte) (ADPV 46; 2017) 183–197. Schöpflin, K. “Die Hellenisierung der jüdischen Gottesbezeichnung. Ein Versuch anhand von Beobachtungen am spätbiblischen Buch Tobit”, Alexandria (Hrsg. T. Georges – F. Albrecht – R. Feldmeier) (Tübingen 2013) 313–340. Schöpflin, K. “Scriptural Authority and the Ancestor as its Teacher and Example in the Book of Tobit”, Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity (eds. I. Kalimi – T. Nicklas – G. G. Xeravits) (DCLS 16; Berlin 2013) 85– 107. Schöpflin, K. “Women’s Roles in the Narrative and Theology of the Book of Tobit”, Religion and Female Body in Ancient Judaism and Its Environments (ed. G. G. Xeravits) (DCLS 25; Boston 2015) 173–185. Schreiner, P. “Space, Place and Biblical Studies: A Survey of Recent Research in Light of Developing Trends”, CBR 14/3 (2015) 340–371. Schüngel-Straumann, H. “Das Buch Tobit. Ein Lehrstück zu Ehe und Familie in der Diaspora”, Kompendium Feministische Bibelauslegung (Hrsg. M.-T. Wacker – L. Schottroff) (Gütersloh 1998) 401–409. Schüngel-Straumann, H. Tobit (HThKAT; Freiburg 2000) Schwartz, J. “Dogs in Jewish Society of the Second Temple Period and in the Time of Mishnah and Talmud”, JJS 55/2 (2004) 246–277. Schwartz, J. “Good Dog-Bad Dog: Jews and Their Dogs in Ancient Jewish Society”, A Jew’s Best friend? The Image of the Dog Throughout Jewish History (eds. P. Ackerman-Lieberman – R. Zalashik) (Brighton 2013) 52–89. Schwartz, J. “Remarques littéraires sur le roman de Tobit”, RHPR 67/3 (1987) 293– 297. Sengelmann, H. Das Buch Tobit (Hamburg 1857)

308 

 Bibliography

Serarius, N. In Sacros Divinorum Bibliorum Libros, Tobiam, Iudith, Esther, Machabaeos, Commentarius (Mainz 1610) Shaked, S., ed. Officina Magica : Essays on the Practice of Magic in Antiquity (IJS Studies in Judaica 4; Leiden – Boston (MA) 2005) Shaked, S. – J. N. Ford, – Bhayro, eds. Aramaic Bowl Spells: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls vol. 1. (MRLA 1; Leiden – Boston (MA) 2013) Sharp, C. J. Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington, IND 2009) Shaw, C. A. “‘Genitalia of the Sea’: Seafood and Sexuality in Greek Comedy”, Mnemosyne 67 (2014) 554–576. Ska, J. L. “Our Fathers Have Told Us”. Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (Subsidia Biblica 13; Rome 1990) Skemp, V. T. M. “«Ἀδελφός» and the Theme of Kinship in Tobit”, ETL 75/1 (1999) 92–103. Skemp, V. T. M. “Avenues of Intertextuality Between Tobit and the New Testament”, Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (ed. J. Corley – V. T. M. Skemp) (Washington, D.C. 2005) 43–70. Skemp, V. T. M. The Vulgate of Tobit Compared With Other Ancient Witnesses (SBLDS 180; Atlanta 2000) Soll, W. M. “Misfortune and Exile in Tobit : The Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source and Deuteronomic Theology”, CBQ 51/2 (1989) 209–231. Soll, W. M. “The Family as Scriptural and Social Construct in Tobit”, The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. C. A. Evans – J. A. Sanders) (JSNT.SS 154; Sheffield 1998) 166–175. Soll, W. M. “Tobit and Folklore Studies, With Emphasis on Propp’s Morphology”, SBLSP 27 (1988) 39–53. Spencer, R. A. “The Book of Tobit in Recent Research”, CR:BS 7 (1999) 147–180. Sperber, A. The Bible in Aramaic Based On Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts (Leiden – Boston, MA 2004) Stansell, G. “The Gift in Ancient Israel”, Semeia 87 (1999) 65–90. Stern, M. Bible & Music: Influences of the Old Testament on Western Music (Jersey City, N.J. 2011) Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, IND 1985) Strazicich, J. Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel. Appropriation and Resignification in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity (Biblical Interpretation Series 82; Leiden 2012) Stuckenbruck, L. T. “The Book of Tobit and the Problem of “Magic””, Jüdische Schriften in ihrem antik-jüdischen und urchristlichen Kontext (Hrsg. H. Lichtenberger – G. S. Oegema, Gerbern S.) (Gütersloh 2002) 258–269. Stuckenbruck, L. T. “The «Fagius» Hebrew Version of Tobit. An English Translation Based on the Constantinople Text of 1519”, The Book of Tobit – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 189–219. Stuckenbruck, L. T. The Myth of Rebellious Angels (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament WUNT 335; Tübingen 2014) Stuckenbruck, L. T. “The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4 in the Second and Third Centuries B.C.E.” The Fall of the Angels (eds. C. Auffarth – L. T. Stuckenbruck) (Themes in Biblical Narrative 6; Leiden 2004) 87–118.

Bibliography 

 309

Stuckenbruck, L. T. “Tobit”, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible (ed. M. D. Coogan) (Oxford – New York 2011) II 430–435. Sudarsky, R. D. “Tobit and Chelanting Agents”, AJO 6 (1964) 963–967. Sugar, M. “Commonalities Between the Isaac and Oedipus Myths: A Speculation”, JAAP 30/4 (2002) 691–706. Sundermann, W. “Zoroastrian Motifs in Non-Zoroastrian Traditions”, JRAS 18/2 (2008) 155–165. Tandecki, D. “Leidensweg und Erfüllung: Paul Claudels “L’Histoire de Tobie et de Sara””, Paradeigmata 2 (1989) 775–788. Tcherikover, V. – A. Fuks, eds. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. Volume 1: The Ptolemaic Period (Cambridge, Mass 1957) Tcherikover, V. A. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia 1999) Thomas, D. W. “Kelebh ‘Dog’: Its Origin and Some Usages of It in the Old Testament”, VT 10 (1960) 410–427. Toloni, G. “Echi Omerici nel Libro di Tobia?”, Sef 67/1 (2007) 5–36. Toloni, G. “Ahiqar tra leggenda e rielaborazione letteraria: una tradizione e i suoi riflessi”, Sef 73/1 (2013) 7–30. Toloni, G. La sofferenza del giusto : Giobbe e Tobia a confronto (Studi Biblici Paideia 159; Brescia 2009) Toloni, G. L’originale del libro di Tobia : Studio filologico-linguistico (TECC 71; Madrid 2004) Toloni, G. “Tobi e Ahiqar”, Il saggio Ahiqar. Fortuna e trasformazioni di uno scritto sapienziale. Il testo più antico e le sue versioni. (Studi Biblici 148; Brescia 2005) 141–166. Torrey, C. C. “‘Nineveh’ in the Book of Tobit”, JBL 41 (1922) 237–245. Tümpel, C. – P. Schatborn, eds. Het Boek Tobias. Met etsen en tekeningen van Rembrandt en zijn leerlingen (Zeist 1987) Turner, E. Greek Papyri. An Introduction (Oxford 1968) Turqan, R. “Le roman ”initiatique”: A propos de un livre récent”, RHR 163 (1963) 149–199. Urbina, J. Cantera Ortiz de. “Paul Claudel y la Biblia : comentarios en torno a su obra teatral ”L’Histoire de Tobie et de Sara”.” Sefarad 46.1,2 (1986) 89–103. Urbrock, W. J. “Angels, Bird-droppings and Fish liver : the Earth Story in Tobit”, Readings from the Perspective of Earth (ed. N. C. Habel) (Cleveland, OH 2000) 125–137. Van Buren, E. D. “Fish-Offerings in Ancient Mesopotamia”, Iraq 10.2 (1948) 101– 121. VanderKam, J. C. “Mapping Second Temple Judaism”, The Early Enoch Literature (ed. G. Boccaccini – J. J. Collins) (JSJS 121; Leiden – Boston (MA) 2007) 1–20. Van der Thorn, K. – Becking, B. E. – Van der Horst, P. W. (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden – Boston – Köln 1999) Venerabilis, B. In Librum Beati Patris Tobiae Allegorica Interpretatio (PL 90, 925–938;) Verderame, L. “Demons at Work in Ancient Mesopotamia”, Demons and Illness from Antiquity to the Early-Modern Period (S. Bhayron – C. Rider) (MRLA 5; Leiden – Boston, MA 2017) chap. 5, 61–78. Vermeylen, J. Jérusalem centre du monde : Développements et contestations d’une tradition biblique (LDiv 217; Paris 2007) Vialle, C. “Ange et compagnon de route: le personnage de Raphaël dans le livre de Tobie (texte court)”, ETR 89/2 (2014) 145–156. Vílchez Líndez, J. Tobías y Judit (Estella 2000) Virgulin, S. “La preghiera nel libro di Tobia”, PSV 3/1 (1981) 47–58. Virgulin, S. “Le opere di carità nel libro di Tobia”, PSV 11 (1985) 46–56.

310 

 Bibliography

Virgulin, S. Tobia (NVBTO 13; Roma 1978) Vogel, C. “Le repas sacré au poisson chez les chrétiens”, RSR 40 (1966) 1–26. Wacholder, B. Z. “The Ancient Judaeo-Aramaic Literature (500–164 BCE). A Classification of Pre-Qumranic Texts”, Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin (ed. L. H. Schiffman) (JSP.SS 8; Sheffield 1990) 257–281. Wagner, C. J., ed. Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse. Griechisch – Lateinisch – Syrisch – Hebräisch – Aramäisch. Mit einem Index zu den Tobit-Fragmenten vom Toten Meer (MSU 28; Göttingen 2003) Waltke, B. K. – M. P. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IND 1990) Wapnish, P. “Pampered Pooches or Plain Pariahs? The Ashkelon Dog Burials”, BA 56/2 (1993) 55–80. Wassen, C. “Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings. Origins, Development and Reception (ed. F. V. Reiterer – T. Nicklas – K. Schöpflin) (DCLY 2007; Berlin – New York 2007) 499–523. Way, K. C. Donkeys in the Biblical World. Ceremony and Symbol (History, Archeology and Culture in the Levant 2; Winona Lake, IND 2011) Weeks, S. “A Deuteronomistic Heritage in Tobit?”, Changes in Scripture. Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second TemplePeriod (ed. textscH. von Weissenberg – J. Pakkala – M. Marttila) (BZAW 419; Berlin – New York, NY 2011) 389–404. Weeks, S. “Restoring the Greek Tobit”, JSJ 44 (2013) 1–15. Weeks, S. – S. J. Gathercole, – L. T. Stuckenbruck, eds. The Book of Tobit. Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions, with Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac (FoSub 3; Berlin – New York 2004) Weeks, S. “Reconstructing Tobit 13.6–10”, The Temple in Text and Tradition. Festschrift in Honour of Robert Hayward (ed. T. McLay) (LSTS 83; London 2015) 35–47. Weigel, M. “Die Rettende Macht der Barmherzigkeit: Achikar im Buch Tobit”, BZ 50/2 (2006) 212–243. Weitzman, S. “Allusion, Artifice and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit”, JBL 115/1 (1996) 49–61. Wenham, G. Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Dallas, TX 1994) Wénin, A. “Le Marriage de Tobias et ceux d’Isaac et de Jacob en Genése”, Révéler les oeuvres de Dieu. Lecture narrative du livre de Tobie (éd. E. Di Pede – C. Lichtert – D. Luciani – C. Vialle – A. Wénin) (Le livre et le rouleau 46; Namur – Paris 2014) 168–181. White, R. J. The Interpretation of Dreams. The Oneirocritica of Artemidorus (New Jersey 1975) Williamson, H. G. M. Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, TX 1985) Wills, L. M. Ancient Jewish Novels. An Anthology (Oxford – New York 2002) Wills, L. M. “Jewish Novellas in a Greek and Roman Age: Fiction and Identity”, JSJ 42/2 (2011) 141–165. Wilson, S. Making Men: The Male Coming-of-Age Theme in the Hebrew Bible (New York, NY 2015) Wolff, H. W. Obadiah and Jonah. A Commentary (Minneapolis 1986) Wright III, B. G. “Wisdom of Ben Sira”, Outside the Bible. Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (ed. L. H. Feldman – J. Kugel – L. H. Schiffman) (Philadelphia 2013) III 2208–2352.

Bibliography 

 311

Xeravits, G. G. “‘Stranger in a Strange Land’: Tobiah’s Journey”, The Stranger in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Tradition. Papers Read at the First Meeting of the JBSCE, Piliscsaba, 2009 (ed. J. Dušek – G. G. Xeravits) (DCLS 4; Berlin – New York 2010) 86–94. Yamauchi, E. M. “Aramaic Magic Bowls”, JAOS 85/5 (1965) 511–523. Yamauchi, E. M. “Magic in the Biblical World”, Tyndale Bulletin 34 (1983) 169–200. Yamauchi, E. M. “Magic or Miracle? Diseases, Demons and Exorcisms”, The Miracles of Jesus (eds. D. Wenham – C. Blomberg) (Gospel Perspectives 6; Sheffield 1986) 89–183. Zappella, L. Manuale di analisi narrativa biblica (Strumenti 65; Torino 2014) Zappella, M. Tobit (NVBTA 30; Cinisello Balsamo, MI 2010) Zappella, M. “L’immagine dell’elezione come strumento dell’esaltazione apologetica di Israele secondo quattro testi ebraici in lingua greca (Tobia, Ben Sira, Giuditta, Ester)”, RStB 17/1 (2005) 167–201. Zappella, M. “Tobit l’aretalogo. Il Libro di Tobit secondo l’onciale Sinaitico come esempio di propaganda religiosa”, “Ricercare la Sapienza di tutti gli antichi” (Sir 39.1). Miscellanea in onore di Gian Luigi Prato (a cura di M. Milani – M. Zappella) (RivB Suppl. 56; Bologna 2013) 151–158. Zehetbauer, M. “Barmherzigkeit als Lehnübersetzung. Die Etymologie des Begriffes im Hebraïschen, Griechischen, Lateinischen und Deutschen – eine kleine Theologiegeschichte”, BN 90 (1997) 67–83. Zimmermann, F. “Problems and Solutions in the Book of Jonah”, Judaism 40/4 (1991) 580–589. Zimmermann, F. The Book of Tobit. An English Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Jewish Apocryphal Literature; New York 1958) Zsengellér, J. “Topography as Theology: Theological Premises of the Geographical References in the Book of Tobit”, The Book of Tobit – Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér) (JSJS 98; Leiden 2005) 177–188.

Index Biblical Index Genesis – 1:2.6 148 – 1:20–23 126 – 1:28 256 – 2:7 198 – 2:7.18 152 – 2:14 105 – 2:18 24 – 2:24 152 – 2:25 94 – 3 79 – 4:1 231 – 4:2 210 – 6 210 – 6:1–4 269 – 6:1–6 212 – 6:1–8 224 – 6:17 148 – 8:6 24 – 10:12 115 – 11:29 210 – 11:30 178 – 11:31 210 – 12:5 210 – 12:11 211 – 12:19 210, 216 – 15:1 240 – 15:4 161 – 16:3 210 – 16:4 231 – 17:17 178 – 19 250 – 19:15 210 – 19:31 226 – 19:33 231 – 20 210 – 21:27 94 – 22 96 – 22:1 161 – 22:2 161 – 22:3 135 – 22:5 74 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110615074-008

– 22:5.12 97 – 22:6 97, 160, 162 – 22:6.8 97, 98 – 22:6b–8 159 – 22:7 165 – 22:7–8 160 – 22:7.11 204 – 22:8 97, 165 – 22:12 161 – 22:13 162 – 22:23 162 – 24 22, 98 – 24:3–4.7.37–40 210 – 24:3.7.12.14.50.51 244 – 24:3.37.51 216 – 24:35 79 – 24:51 210 – 25:20 162 – 26:16 211 – 26:24 240 – 27:1.18 204 – 28 199 – 28:10–22 102 – 28:13 240 – 29 96, 98 – 29:6(2x) 199 – 29:17 211 – 29:23.30 231 – 30:43 79 – 32:12 136 – 37 96 – 37:14 199 – 37:26 138 – 37:35 233 – 38:16 231 – 39–50 96 – 39:7 231 – 41:8.24 190 – 43:27 199 – 44:20 214 Exodus – 3:4 204 – 3:8 136

314 

 Index

– 4:18 199 – 7:11.22 190 – 8:3.14–15 190 – 9:11 190 – 12 102 – 14:21 135 – 17:1–7 148 – 18:4 136 – 21:15.17 221 – 22:18 221 – 29:13.22 175 Leviticus – 3:4.10.15 175 – 4:9 175 – 5:10 226 – 7:4 175 – 8:16.25 175 – 9:10.19 175 – 9:16 226 – 17:11 176 – 19:17 176 – 20:9 221 – 20:10 221 – 20:11–12.14 221 – 20:15–16 221 – 24:11–16 222 Numbers – 20:1–13 148 – 21:34 240 – 22:22–35 79 – 26:1–32 225 – 26:32 225 – 27:1–4 225 – 27:1–11 223 – 27:5–11 225 – 36 225 – 36:3–4 225 – 36:5–9 223 Deuteronomy – 1:8 40 – 4:1–8 239 – 6:1–6 239 – 6:13 40

– 7:1–3 40 – 7:11–12 40 – 12:1–14 24, 223 – 12:23 176 – 21:17 226 – 24:4 216 Joshua – 8:1 240 – 9:2 223 – 10:6 136 – 11:6 240 Judges – 6:22–23 240 – 6:23 240 – 10:15 136 Ruth – 1:5 94–95 1 Samuel – 1–2 178 – 3:4 204 – 6:14 135 – 9 79 – 12:10 136 – 14:48 136 – 25:6 199 – 30:8 136 2 Samuel – 4 231 – 11 231 – 14:6 136 – 14:8 199 – 20:9 199 – 22:17–18 148 – 23:12 136 1 Kings – 1:12 136 – 5:18 168 – 11:32 223 – 17:21 198

Index 

2 Kings – 1:15 240 – 9:22 138 – 9:30 196 1 Chronicles – 16:40 223 2 Chronicles – 23:18 22 – 25:4 22 – 30:16 22 Nehemiah – 2:10.19 38 – 4:3.7 38 – 6 38 – 8:14 223 – 13 38 Esther – 2:7 211 Job – 2:9–10 25 – 4:21 198 – 38:30 148 Psalms – 30:2 136 – 59:2 (58 LXX) 136 – 69:2.16 148 – 74:15 148 – 124:1–5 148 – 140:2 (139 LXX) 136 Proverbs – 7:23 176 – 12:4 211 – 13:13 199 – 17:17 138 Qohelet – 5:7–9 23 – 9:11 168

Isaiah – 6:8 204 – 36:22 135 Jeremiah – 4:7 196 – 4:30 196 – 16:2 216 Lamentations – 2:11 176 Ezekiel – 15:4 138 – 21:26 177 – 21:36 198 – 24:8 196 – 37:9 198 – 38:10.18 196 Ezequiel – 24:8 196 – 38:10.18 196 Daniel – 2:45 224 – 9:13 223 – 10:19 199 – 14:27 182 Amos – 1:13 135 – 2:6 24 – 4:12 24 – 8:10 24 – 14:4 24 Jonah – 1:2 115 – 1:12–15 115 – 2:1 113, 114, 115, 118 – 2:2–11 118 – 2:3 118 – 3:2–3 115 – 4:11 115

 315

316 

 Index

Micah – 5:11 138 Nahum – 2:2 198 – 3:4 138 Zechariah – 6:10.14 138 – 14:4 135 Matthew – 1:20 240 – 5:29 136 – 12:39–41 126 – 18:9 136 Mark – 6:34–44 126 Luke – 2:10 240 John – 6:1–15 126 – 8:3–5 222 – 20:22 198 Acts of the Apostles – 6:7–8:1 222 Revelation – 9:21 138 Judith – 1:1 115 – 8:7 211 Tobit – 1:3 57, 218 – 1:3.5.21 158 – 1:3–8.16 29 – 1:4 38 – 1:4–5.7 39, 58 – 1:4–6 222 – 1:4–8 24, 39, 57 – 1:4b.5 24

– 1:4c 24 – 1:5–6 79 – 1:6–8 47 – 1:8 57, 95, 223 – 1:9 1, 38, 57, 69 – 1:10–11 22 – 1:10–17 38 – 1:10.14 158 – 1:13–14 1, 47 – 1:14 29 – 1:14–15 56 – 1:16 158 – 1:17– 19 57 – 1:17– 20 232 – 1:17– 21 235 – 2:1– 2 29 – 2:1– 7 69 – 2:1– 8 232, 235 – 2:2 95 – 2:2.3.10 158 – 2:2– 3 262 – 2:3 203, 204 – 2:3– 4.7 57 – 2:4.7 149 – 2:6 22 – 2:9 57 – 2:9– 10 149 – 2:10 79, 156, 262 – 2:11 22 – 2:11– 14 22, 24 – 3 1 – 3:1– 6 69 – 3:1– 6.11– 15 57 – 3:6 169 – 3:7 56 – 3:7– 9 149 – 3:7– 10 149 – 3:8 152, 160, 168, 203 – 3:8– 9 152, 234 – 3:8.17 56, 173 – 3:10 138, 211 – 3:13– 15 250 – 3:16 202 – 3:16– 17 255, 286 – 3:17 160, 202, 203, 235 – 4:1 1, 56, 164 – 4:1– 2.20 47

Index 

– 4:1– 12 69 – 4:3– 4 57, 145, 203, 232, 235 – 4:3– 21 25 – 4:5.7 218 – 4:7– 11 58 – 4:12 38, 57, 69, 224 – 4:12– 13 239, 256 – 4:15 22 – 4:18 138 – 4:19 239 – 4:20 70, 164 – 4:21 164, 240 – 5 1 – 5–11 1 – 5:1 70, 115, 145, 204, 240, 262, 263 – 5:1–2 70 – 5:1–3.18–22 22 – 5:2abc 164 – 5:2c 164 – 5:3 22 – 5:3–4 70 – 5:3–17 70 – 5:4–6 70 – 5:5.7.10 159 – 5:5a 164 – 5:6 56 – 5:7– 8 70 – 5:10 164, 262 – 5:11–14 159 – 5:15 22 – 5:17 54, 57, 70, 72, 73, 74, 159 – 5:18 48, 164 – 5:18–6:1 47, 48 – 5:18–20 160 – 5:21 240 – 6 1, 218 – 6:2 3, 48, 56, 57, 72 – 6:2a 81 – 6:2b 81, 95, 97 – 6:2b.6d 98 – 6:3 105 – 6:3–9 261 – 6:3c 129 – 6:4b 162 – 6:5 137 – 6:6 239 – 6:6d 95, 159

– 6:7 138 – 6:7–9 262 – 6:8 173 – 6:8.14.18 173 – 6:9 57 – 6:11 212 – 6:11–12 229 – 6:11b 151 – 6:12 58, 232 – 6:12–13 225 – 6:12–23 226 – 6:13 3, 22, 57 – 6:14 102 – 6:14–15 181, 203, 235 – 6:14.18b 152 – 6:15 57, 231, 232 – 6:15–16 57 – 6:16 239 – 6:16–18 96, 251 – 6:18 57, 152 – 6:18g 152 – 7 95 – 7–10 1 – 7:1 48, 151 – 7:1–8 183 – 7:2–8 151 – 7:6 218 – 7:6–8 48 – 7:9 79 – 7:9b 151 – 7:9b.10 151 – 7:10 227, 234 – 7:10–11 183 – 7:10–16 151 – 7:10b–11 151 – 7:11 57 – 7:11–13 22, 57 – 7:11c 151 – 7:11d 151 – 7:11d–13 151 – 7:13 22 – 7:15–16 151 – 8 261 – 8:1 151 – 8:1–2 242 – 8:1–9 56, 102 – 8:2 168

 317

318 

 Index

– 8:2–3 57, 168, 261 – 8:2–8 249 – 8:3 56, 173, 191 – 8:3–8 261 – 8:4–9 145 – 8:4b–9 152 – 8:5–8 242 – 8:6 256 – 8:6–7 152 – 8:7 95 – 8:9–11 181 – 8:9–11.18 57, 232 – 8:9a 152 – 8:9b–18 183 – 8:13 95 – 8:16–17 248 – 8:19 79 – 8:19–2 29 – 8:21 29, 57 – 9:2 79, 286 – 9:3(4) 286 – 9:5–6 286 – 9:6 95, 218 – 10:6 240 – 10:7 47 – 10:10 79 – 10:10–13 260 – 10:11–13 57 – 10:12 57 – 10:13–11:4 47 – 11:1 57, 260 – 11:2 261 – 11:3 260 – 11:3.8 261 – 11:4 57, 80, 94, 95, 98, 260 – 11:4.7–8 260 – 11:4a 81 – 11:4c 81 – 11:5–6 261 – 11:6 261 – 11:7 221, 248, 261 – 11:7–8.10– 13 57 – 11:7–13 195 – 11:8 138 – 11:8.11 57, 157 – 11:9 145 – 11:10–14 262

– 11:11 138, 263 – 11:14 118, 263 – 11:15 263 – 12 139 – 12:4 218 – 12:14 161 – 12:15 161 – 12:18 99, 161 – 12:19 139 – 13 57 – 13:2 149 – 13:9– 17 38 – 13:11.14 22 – 14:1– 2.11.13– 14 58 – 14:2 286 – 14:2.10– 11 58 – 14:3 245 – 14:3.8/9 152 – 14:3– 9 57 – 14:4 22, 38, 47 – 14:4(3x).5.6.7.8 59 – 14:4.6 22 – 14:4– 5 58 – 14:5 21 – 14:5– 7 38 – 14:7 203 – 14:8/9– 11 58 – 14:8– 11 25 – 14:10– 13 57 – 14:12– 14 47, 262 – 14:12– 15 1, 156 – 14:13 29, 58, 232 – 14:14– 15 69, 286 – 14:15 22 – 22:6 165 – 22:8 162 – 31:10 211 – 36:6– 12 225 1 Maccabees – 10:36 226 – 10:43 221 – 13:15 221 2 Maccabees – 1:10 199 – 3:11 38

‫‪ 319‬‬

‫ ‪Index‬‬

‫‪ 137‬ארי‬ ‫‪ 135‬בזע‬ ‫‪ 114‬בלע‬ ‫‪ 212‬ברא‬ ‫‪ 218‬גזר‬ ‫‪ 100‬דקלת‬ ‫‪ 221‬חיב‪/‬חוב‬ ‫‪ 197‬חרריא‬ ‫‪ 118‬יבשתא‬ ‫‪ 94‬כחדא‬ ‫‪ 196‬כחל‬ ‫‪ 102‬לילה‬ ‫‪ 100‬משרי‬ ‫‪ 135‬נפק‬ ‫‪ 100‬סדר‬ ‫‪ 74, 75‬עולימא‬ ‫‪ 77, 97‬עלימא‬ ‫‪ 191‬פטר‬ ‫‪ 239‬פקד‬ ‫‪ 239‬פקוד‬ ‫‪ 224‬פשר‬ ‫‪ 167‬קדם‬ ‫‪ 218‬קשטא‬ ‫‪ 74‬רביא‬ ‫‪ 169, 172‬רוח‬ ‫‪ 258‬רחם‬ ‫‪ 140‬שבק‬ ‫‪ 169‬שד‬ ‫‪ 212‬שפירה‬ ‫‪ 134‬תקף‬ ‫‪ 94‬תרויהון‬

‫‪Hebrew Index‬‬ ‫‪133‬‬ ‫‪231‬‬ ‫‪112‬‬ ‫‪135‬‬ ‫‪111‬‬ ‫‪76, 266‬‬ ‫‪129‬‬ ‫‪134‬‬ ‫‪211‬‬ ‫‪118‬‬ ‫‪74‬‬ ‫‪136‬‬ ‫‪137‬‬

‫אחז‬ ‫בוא‬ ‫בלע‬ ‫בקע‬ ‫דלג‬ ‫דרך‬ ‫זעק‬ ‫חזק‬ ‫חכמה‬ ‫יבשה‬ ‫ילד‬ ‫ישע‬ ‫כי‬

‫‪– 9:19 199‬‬ ‫‪– 11:28.38 199‬‬ ‫‪– 12:12 138‬‬ ‫‪4 Maccabees‬‬ ‫‪– 15:10 211‬‬ ‫‪Wisdom‬‬ ‫‪– 1:14 138‬‬ ‫‪– 4:3 138‬‬ ‫‪– 8:7 138‬‬ ‫‪– 13:11 138‬‬ ‫‪– 15:11 198‬‬ ‫‪Sirach‬‬ ‫‪– 6:16 138‬‬ ‫‪– 7:22 138‬‬ ‫‪– 10:4 138‬‬ ‫‪– 13:4 138‬‬ ‫‪– 26:2 211‬‬ ‫‪– 28:15 211‬‬ ‫‪– 38:4 138‬‬ ‫‪Baruch‬‬ ‫‪– 2:2 223‬‬ ‫‪Letter of Jeremiah‬‬ ‫‪– 1:58 138‬‬ ‫‪1 Esdras‬‬ ‫‪– 1:13 226‬‬ ‫‪1 Enoch‬‬ ‫‪– 6– 7 212‬‬ ‫)‪Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20; 1QapGen‬‬ ‫‪– 20:20 190‬‬ ‫‪Testament of Solomon‬‬ ‫‪– 5:7 251‬‬

‫‪Aramaic Index‬‬ ‫‪140‬‬ ‫‪134‬‬ ‫‪139‬‬ ‫‪185‬‬

‫אורחא‬ ‫אחד‬ ‫אכל‬ ‫אסר‬

320 

‫לילה‬ ‫לקח‬ ‫מלאך‬ ‫מלט‬ ‫מצוה‬ ‫משפט‬ ‫נער‬ ‫נפוץ‬ ‫נפח‬ ‫נצל‬ ‫נתן‬ ‫נתר‬ ‫סדר‬ ‫עלה‬ ‫פגע‬ ‫צוה‬ ‫קום‬ ‫רב‬ ‫רגל‬ ‫שים‬ ‫שׁניהם‬ ‫תנינם‬

 Index

102 216 75 136 238, 239 226 74, 97 198 198 136 137 111 100 135 168 238, 239 111 111 111, 112 137 94 114

Greek Index ἀγαπάω 257 ἄγγελος 75, 143, 144 ἄδελφε 273 ἀδελφή 257 ἀδελφός 158, 246, 273 αἴσθησις 211 ἁλίζω 141 ἀμφότερος 94, 95 ἀναβαίνω 196 ἀναβᾶσα 149 ἀναπηδάω 111, 149 ἀναπηδήσας 149 ἀνασχίζω 135 ἀναφέρω 135, 162 ἀνδρεῖον 210 ἄνθρωπος 261 ἀπάντημα 168, 173 ἀποθνῄσκω 230 ἀποκτείνω 230 ἀποστύψει 198 ἀποτίθημι 136, 137 ἀρετή 212

ἀρχάγγελος 75 αὐλισθῆναι 207 ἀφίημι 140, 141 γινώσκω 261 δαιμόνιον 169, 170, 172 δαίμων 170, 171 δεδικαίωταί 218 δεῖ 207 δῆσαι 190 δικαιόω 218 ἐγχρίω 195 εἰσέρχομαι 231 εἰσῆλθον 149 ἐκοιμήθην 149 ἔμπροσθέν 80 ἐμφυσάω 197, 198 ἐμφυσῆσαι 195 ἐνδόξως 58 ἐντέλλομαι 238 ἐντολή 238, 239 ἐξαιρέω 136 ἐξέρχομαι 72, 74, 75, 81, 149 ἐπιλαμβάνω 133 ἐπίσταμαι 220, 221, 261 ἐπορεύθησαν 155 εὐοδόω 54 ἔφαγεν 139 ἕψω 140 ἤγγισαν 155 ἧδαρ 176 ἡδονὴ 176, 212 ἤκουσα 230 ἧπαρ 176 ἡπατοσκοπέω 177 ἡπατοσκοπήσασθαι 177 ἰάσασθαι 190 ἰχθύς 126, 269 καθήκω 226 καλὸνλίαν 210 καπνίζω 167 καρδία 258 καταβαίνω 110, 149 καταπιεῖν 112 κατέβη 149 κληρονομέω 59, 209 κληρονομία 209, 226 κλῆρος 209

Index 

κοινός 95 κοινωνία 95 κοινωνός 95 κοινῶς 94, 95 κολλάω 258, 259 κοράσιον 210 κράζω 129 κρατέω 134 κρίσις 224, 226 κωλύω 259 λαμβάνω 216 λέγω 204 λεύκωμα 197 λῦσαι 190 νεανίσκος 77 νίπτω 110 νυμφών 168 νύξ 102 ὁδός 76 ὄπισθεν 80 ὀπίσω 80 ὀπτάω 140 ὀσμή 192 ὀχλέω 167 παιδάριον 75, 97

παιδίον 77 περικλύζω 110 περινίπτω 110 περινίψασθαι 112 πηδάω 111 πορεύομαι 72, 74, 75, 81 προέτρεχεν 80 σημεῖον 164 συνάγω 138, 139 συνελθεῖν 98 συνέρχομαι 81 σύνεσις 211 σχίζω 135 σώσεις 237 σωτηρία 237 ταμίειον 168 ὑγιαίνουσιν 195 ὑγιαίνω 199 φαίνω 243 φάρμακον 137, 156, 186, 187, 188 φιλέω 257 φρόνησις 211, 212 φρόνιμον 210 ψυχή 257 ὤπτησεν 139

 321

Subject Index Adam and Eve 24, 189, 245, 247 Allusion 24, 39, 40, 58, 153, 181, 223, 226, 228, 231, 232, 234, 256, 259, 283 Almsgiving 39, 56, 57–59, 83, 218, 248, 274 Amplification 269 Angel 1, 2, 10, 15, 21, 31, 36, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53–55, 58, 60–65, 67, 69–76, 78, 79, 81, 83, 85–87, 89, 91–94, 98–100, 102, 105–108, 115–117, 129–137, 139, 143–146, 148, 153–157, 159, 161, 163, 165–167, 170, 171, 173, 174, 183, 187–192, 194, 198, 200, 202–206, 208–222, 224–237, 239–250, 254–262, 266–268, 270–274, 276–284, 286, 287 Animals 39, 78–79, 82–84, 89, 90, 114, 117, 173, 175, 176, 177, 180, 193, 195 Apotropaic ritual 175, 249, 262, 275 Apprentice 281 Apprenticeship 28 Aramaic 5, 6, 11, 34, 35, 73–75, 77, 88, 94, 97, 99, 100, 110–112, 114, 129, 134, 137, 139, 140, 155, 169, 172, 185, 191, 192, 196, 197, 199, 204, 211, 218, 221, 239, 242–243, 250, 258 Aramaic bowls 192 Aramaic culture 30 Aramaic literature 34–36, 41 Aretalogy 29 Asmodeus 54, 102, 112, 119, 151, 153, 169, 172, 178, 189–192, 228, 231, 232, 236, 249–251, 261, 269, 270, 287 Atargatis 123, 124 Background 34, 36, 38, 43, 60, 73, 78, 80, 81, 93, 97–100, 107, 112, 114, 131, 135, 145, 155, 174, 179, 255, 281 Baptism 127, 128 Battle, battling 53, 54, 132 Blind, blindness 1, 29, 69, 70, 77, 79, 91, 101, 104, 116, 118, 149, 159, 164, 180, 188, 196, 197, 220, 261, 262, 272, 275, 287 Blood 171, 176, 195

Burial 27, 38, 57, 90, 95, 162, 179, 181, 194, 227, 230, 232, 233, 235, 247, 271, 274–275, 283 Cameo appearance 79 Character 1–3, 30, 35, 42, 46–48, 56, 57, 60, 61, 64–67, 72–74, 77, 78–81, 83, 92, 93, 95, 97–99, 102, 107, 114, 116, 119, 129–131, 150, 155, 161, 163, 166, 179, 186, 188, 189, 207, 221, 229, 234, 235, 254–256, 259, 260, 262, 267, 269–273, 276–279, 282, 284–286 Characterological development 3, 55, 69, 70, 279 Charm 19, 80 Chiasmus 66, 132, 280 Child, childhood, children 3, 17, 36–38, 59, 77, 101, 116, 146, 198, 203, 215, 224, 245–246, 254, 270, 273 Christ 84, 126–128, 180, 269 Church 73, 84, 93, 127, 253 Communicative dynamics 159, 161, 166, 194, 201, 229, 234, 259, 269, 284, 285 Complication 69, 107, 130, 143, 157, 165, 194, 204 Concentric/ring structure 280 Conscience 86, 209, 229, 235, 245, 256, 258 Cooking (and eating) 107, 122, 139, 140 Correctio 228 Creation 82, 83, 148, 189, 195, 241, 250, 267, 272 Creator 85, 138, 272 Critical text 20, 139 Crocodile 121–122 Cyropaedia 30 Day 22, 52, 61, 72, 100, 101–105, 107, 115, 125–126, 176, 221, 262 Death, dead 1, 16, 26, 27, 37, 38, 55, 58, 67, 69, 71, 79, 87, 89, 95, 101, 116, 117, 122–126, 128, 129, 148, 151, 160, 170, 179, 181, 194, 203, 211, 222, 225, 228–235, 243, 245, 248, 250, 251, 271–274, 277, 283, 286

Subject Index 

 323

Death penalty 3, 67, 219, 220–222, 227, 229, 231, 234, 235, 274, 280, 283, 287 Demon, demonic vexation 1, 10, 13, 15, 16, 56, 65, 71, 83, 99, 102, 117, 119, 149, 150, 152, 153, 162, 168–175, 178–182, 185, 189–195, 220, 228, 230–232, 234, 235, 237, 239–243, 248–251, 254, 256, 261, 267, 269, 270, 273, 283, 287 Diaspora 29, 30, 37, 38, 41, 76, 95, 219, 222, 224, 226, 233, 234, 245, 266, 273, 275 Didactic feature 35, 285 Didactic story 41–42, 181, 267 Discourse 36, 37, 48, 50, 51, 54, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65–67, 78, 84, 104, 119, 143, 148, 156, 166, 167, 181, 202, 206, 208, 209, 213, 215, 216, 220, 224, 226, 228, 229, 237, 254–257, 277, 280, 284, 285, 287 Discourse-time 61 Dog 3, 8, 15, 27, 52, 53, 57, 60, 72–75, 77–94, 100, 102, 106, 119, 129, 130, 146, 155, 260, 267, 269, 272, 276, 282, 286 Donkey 79, 91 Drama 50, 54, 55, 76, 91, 101, 111, 131, 161, 165, 183, 265, 286

Fertility 122–126, 129, 142, 179, 180, 194 Fidelity 24, 84, 281 Figures of thought 66 Fish 1, 15, 16, 48–51, 53, 55, 57, 59–62, 64, 65, 72, 79, 83, 91, 93, 101, 102, 105, 107–109, 111–157, 159, 160, 162, 163, 165–168, 174, 175, 177–182, 185–187, 189, 192–197, 200, 201, 205, 207, 221, 235, 237, 240–242, 248–249, 256, 261, 262, 266, 267, 269–271, 273–275, 276, 280–284, 286, 287 Focalization 49, 143, 144, 205 Food 29, 38, 119, 123, 129, 131, 140, 152, 200 Foreground 60, 78, 81, 143, 155, 276 Führungsgeschichte 53, 54, 265

Egyptian religion 122 Endogamy 3, 21, 30, 32, 37, 40, 57, 58, 59, 209, 215, 217–219, 221, 222, 224, 225, 228, 229, 234, 236, 239, 245, 247, 248, 256–258, 270, 272–275, 280, 281, 283, 287 Epiphora 133 Estate 16, 58, 208, 213, 215, 218, 254, 260, 270, 274, 283 Esthetics 82, 94 Eucharist 126–128 Evil 15, 86, 89, 102, 148, 168, 169, 171–174, 179, 180, 190, 201, 211, 213, 269, 270 Exile 21, 29, 38, 39, 41, 57, 58, 59, 171, 183, 189, 193, 203, 210, 247, 250, 266, 275 Exposition 31, 72, 107, 130, 154, 180 Extispicy 177

Haruspex 177 Healing 1, 29, 45, 57, 60, 62, 92, 116, 118, 127, 137, 140, 144, 157, 166, 174, 186–190, 194, 196, 197, 199–203, 205, 207, 221, 228, 248, 249, 251, 255, 260–263, 266, 269, 271, 273, 276, 277, 284, 286 Hellenism 26, 27, 128, 176 Hellenistic Judaism 28 Hellenistic romance 28 Hellenistic times 22, 24, 34, 42, 93, 189 Hero 26, 29, 86, 87, 93, 122, 145 Historical-critical method(s) 87 Homer 54, 80, 85, 87, 93, 177, 197 Hyperbole 66 Hystero-epilepsy 178

Family 19, 30, 37, 38, 40, 45, 47, 58, 65, 76, 77, 84, 86, 87, 95, 96, 208, 210, 217, 221, 229, 234, 246, 273, 274, 277, 279, 283 Feast 29, 101, 104, 111, 124, 125, 183

Gap 64, 77, 99, 100, 106, 107, 144, 204, 262 Genitalia, male and female 112 Geography 65, 102, 103 Grave 16, 90, 117, 125, 150, 160, 181, 183, 219 Guardian angel 86 Guidance 54, 55, 71, 98, 153, 203, 256, 268, 277, 279

Implied reader 65 Inclusion 55–57, 81, 94, 108, 144, 200, 204, 206, 209, 217, 230, 240, 277, 280 Inheritance 58, 59, 208–210, 213, 215, 225, 226, 274, 281

324 

 Subject Index

Intertextual, Intertextuality 4, 23, 42, 66, 85, 94, 95, 97, 98, 113, 115, 117, 131, 153, 159, 160–162, 165, 210, 214, 239, 269, 272, 277, 281 Irony 4, 63, 66, 67, 117, 159, 174, 181–183, 191, 195, 202, 208, 221, 227, 228, 243, 258, 282 Jerusalem 23, 24, 35, 37–40, 47, 57–59, 125, 193, 222, 223 Jesus 84, 114, 126, 127, 128, 136, 180 Journey 26, 29, 30, 47, 55, 65, 69, 71, 72, 76, 77, 85, 87, 100, 102, 103, 105, 115, 130, 141, 143, 148, 149, 155, 163, 183, 260, 263, 265, 266, 278, 279, 287 Kinship 40, 208, 214, 216, 227, 246, 247, 258, 273, 281 Leitwort 49, 108, 216, 277 Leitwortstil 58, 281 Leviathan 125, 127, 142 Life 16, 36, 53, 63, 65, 71, 76, 84, 101, 116, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128, 129, 148, 152, 154, 170, 176, 177, 179, 180, 194, 195, 207, 215, 218, 231, 233–235, 246, 254, 255, 266 Liminal state 2, 146 Literary inclusion 55, 57, 81, 230, 277, 280 Locative memory 84, 87 Maccabean crisis 22 Magic 102, 157, 162, 171, 183–190, 193, 200 Manhood 1, 98, 279, 281, 283, 287 Marriage 1, 16, 22, 29, 32, 35–38, 47, 49–51, 54, 55, 58, 59, 62, 77, 79, 83, 96, 98, 99, 101, 112, 116, 117, 145, 147, 150–152, 154, 160, 162, 165, 173, 174, 178–180, 183, 201–203, 207–211, 213, 215–224, 227–229, 231, 232, 234, 236, 243–249, 252–256, 258, 260, 269–276, 279–283, 285, 287 Maturation 2, 99, 146, 147, 165, 209, 215, 229, 255, 273, 279, 285, 287 Medicine 119, 144, 152, 156, 176, 186–189, 194, 198, 200, 262 Memory, memoires 24, 84, 267, 276

Mermaid 123 Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia geography 23, 65, 102, 103, 123, 177, 180 Messiah 125 Metaphor 152, 265, 266 Metonymy 66 Micro-narrative 49, 142 Mnemonic dynamics 82, 94, 269 Money 1, 29, 45, 47, 53, 56, 65, 70, 71, 79, 87, 160, 164, 183, 205, 217, 229, 238, 263, 277, 279, 282 Music 91–93 Narrated time 61, 62, 100, 104, 132, 156, 205, 249, 259, 276, 278 Narrating time 55, 61, 62, 100, 162, 249, 259, 278 Narrative approach 4 Narrative programme 249, 274, 278, 286 Narrative Rhetoric 66, 133, 142, 166, 194, 200, 204, 234, 235, 245, 278 Narrative technique 4, 32, 67 Narrator 3, 39, 42, 43, 48–56, 58, 60–67, 69–79, 81, 82, 86, 94, 95, 98–108, 112, 113, 115–119, 130–133, 138, 139, 141–145, 147–156, 158–163, 165, 166, 168, 169, 173, 174, 178, 180, 181, 183, 190, 192, 194, 196, 200–205, 207–211, 213, 214, 217, 218, 220, 221, 223, 225, 229, 230, 232–234, 235, 239, 245, 248–250, 254–263, 265, 267–287 Night 10, 15, 16, 61, 72, 96, 99–105, 117, 129, 131, 143, 145, 147, 148, 151, 152, 156, 176, 178, 205–207, 214, 217, 228, 231, 237, 252, 253, 274, 278, 281, 282 Northern tribes 21, 24 Nubile age 77 Odyssey 80, 85, 87, 93, 177 Oratorio, oratory 92 Paideia 98 Parable 59, 266 Parablepsis 80 Parallelism 66, 112, 150, 152, 153, 154, 161, 202–203, 280 Passion 128, 171, 196

Subject Index 

Patriarchal traditions 24, 32, 95–96, 98, 210, 219, 267 Patrimony 29, 58, 71, 95, 164, 208, 210, 212, 213, 225, 281 Pentateuch 22, 36, 219, 221–223, 226, 239, 241 Performative 146, 268, 276 Pilgrimage 85 Place 23, 29, 45, 47, 48–50, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60–62, 67, 71, 72, 75, 76, 80, 85, 91, 93, 95, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 110, 113, 114, 124, 130, 134–137, 140, 146–147, 149, 154–158, 162, 165, 168, 170, 173, 174, 179, 183, 189, 190, 192, 194, 197, 202–205, 207, 213–215, 224, 231, 240, 242, 245, 249, 259–260, 271, 273, 278, 281, 282, 285, 286 Plot 2–3, 40, 45, 47, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 69, 79, 97, 100, 104, 105, 111, 130, 133, 142, 144, 150, 155, 157, 165, 166, 179, 181, 204, 205, 234, 265, 269, 276–278 Poseidon 124 Prayer, pleading, praise 29, 35, 57, 67, 116–118, 152, 168, 186, 191–193, 202, 207, 209, 239, 242, 248–253, 256, 261, 269, 270–275, 284 Providence 84, 85, 166, 238, 275–276 Psychological appeal 215, 220, 283–284 Ptolemaic dominion 23 Pythagoreans 124 Quest 71, 265, 277 Reader 6, 45, 50, 52, 54, 60–65, 71, 72, 75, 79, 81, 94, 99, 103, 105–107, 109, 113, 117, 130, 132, 143–145, 154, 156, 157, 159–161, 163, 166, 167, 172–174, 183, 189, 191, 192, 194, 201, 203–207, 209, 217, 220, 221, 230, 234–235, 237, 250, 253, 259, 261, 262, 266–268, 272, 273, 275–278, 281, 284–286 Remembrance 1, 56, 71, 163, 164, 215, 217, 232, 238, 262, 275, 283, 284, 286 Rite of passage 2–3, 42, 102 Road, road account 1, 2, 15, 45, 46–49, 52, 53, 57, 58, 60, 72, 80, 81, 84, 92, 93, 98, 101, 105, 107, 118, 140, 160, 163, 166,

 325

170, 181, 221–223, 245, 246, 261, 262, 266, 282 Roasting 140, 152 Romance 28, 30, 34, 41–42, 54, 104, 265, 266 Sabbath 125 Salvation 17, 56, 76, 116, 127, 192, 237, 244, 248, 249, 256, 261, 268, 273 Satan 128, 189 Scripture, Four senses of 85 Scripture(s) 22, 25, 31–33, 40, 87 Seleucid dominion 23 Semitic version 5 Serpent 79, 83, 125, 180 Sexuality 113, 122, 129, 142, 151, 152, 174, 181, 224, 231, 247, 250, 254, 258, 273–274 Simile 66 Sitz-im-Leben 266 Smell 16, 86, 162, 174–175, 178–180, 182, 191, 192, 200, 221, 241, 242 Spells 191, 192 Story 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25–28, 30–32, 34–36, 40–43, 46–48, 50–72, 75–79, 82–84, 88, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 101, 103–108, 110, 113–121, 124–126, 128, 130, 131, 139, 143–145, 147, 151, 153, 156, 160–163, 166, 167, 181–183, 186, 191, 194–196, 199–205, 210, 212, 215, 221, 224, 232, 234, 243, 247, 250, 253–254, 256, 259–260, 265–278, 281, 282, 284–287 Story-time 61 Suicide 116, 211, 213 Synoptic approach 20 Talent 29, 71 Textual emendation 6 Textual history 19, 42 Time 21–23, 28, 30, 31, 34, 41, 42, 45, 49, 52, 54–56, 59, 61–62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 72, 77, 83, 85, 88, 89, 92, 95, 100, 102, 104, 105, 120, 121, 126–128, 130, 132, 136, 138, 139, 143, 150, 156, 158, 161–163, 169–171, 174, 183–186, 189, 193, 197, 199, 200, 203, 205, 211, 221,

326 

 Subject Index

224, 226, 229, 232, 242, 244–245, 248, 249–251, 255, 259–260, 273, 276–279, 282, 286 Tithes, tithing 39, 47 Tomb 151, 232 Topos, topoi 190, 265 Torah 35, 37, 39, 41, 79, 187, 219, 223, 225, 239, 241, 247, 250, 274 Travel, traveler 1–2, 22, 28, 29, 30, 43, 45–48, 50–53, 55, 57, 60–67, 69–72, 76–81, 83–85, 91–94, 98, 99, 101–107, 116, 119, 127, 140, 144, 145, 156, 159–164, 166, 183, 201–202, 204–206, 210, 215, 221, 229, 234, 235, 237, 246,

254, 259–262, 265–268, 271–274, 276–287 Utterance-implementation (pattern) 69–70, 132, 143 Watchers 172, 187–188, 212, 224, 269 Water 15, 103, 109, 120–122, 132, 140, 148, 162 Whale 83, 120, 125 Wisdom literature 35, 266 Zenon Papyri 38 Zoroastrianism 233