and of the high advancement of Achiacharan his brother's son, i. 13, 21. Both of these last circumstances are very little to be expected in a parable.]

§ 239. The language of the book of Tobit.

No Hebrew text of this book was found either by Jerome or by Origen: nor can it be proved by internal arguments taken from the Alexandrine text, that any such has ever existed. What ILGEN, Geschichte Tobit, u. s. f. S. cxxiii-cxxv., has advanced to the contrary is by no means satisfactory, as I have shown in my German Introd. § 239. p. 900-902. Jerome had indeed a Chaldee text; but it is impossible to show that it was not a translation from the Greek. -The author seems therefore to have written in Greek.[a]

[a) The reader who is curious to examine this subject should consult DE WETTE, Einleit. § 310., who gives very numerous references in support of the opinion of Ilgen. He also maintains that not only the Chaldee and Greek, but also the Syriac and old Latin or Italic versions, are separate and independent texts, or editions of this narrative. He argues from the material differences in all four in 1) names; 2) accounts of particular circumstances; 3) appendices; 4) omissions; and 5) more or less full representations of the same events and speeches. Anm. b), d), and e). Tr.]

§ 240. Age of the book of Tobit.

That the book was not written in the age of Tobit himself, is plain from the fact that he is represented as living under the reigns of Salmanasar, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon, (734-678 B. C.) at which time the Magian ideas concerning Asmodeus or Ahriman, and concerning the seven spirits that stand before the throne of God, &c. were not yet introduced and mingled with the Mosaic religion. This is confirmed by the mention of the city Rages, first built by Seleucus Nicator, which could not have been made by the author without raising a difficulty in the mind of his readers, by carrying back to such a remote antiquity the existence of so modern a city, unless he had lived at a time when its founder had already been forgotten. The book, therefore, could not have been written more than 150 or 200 years before Christ.That it was written after the Chastian

era, is entirely unsusceptible of proof. The silence of Josephus and Philo respecting Tobit proves nothing; for both writers are silent also concerning Jesus the son of Sirach. Josephus, doubtless, considered the contents of the book as parabolical, and therefore could no more use it in his Antiquities than he could the book of Job. Besides, the writers of the New Testament had read the book of Tobit; for proof of which comp. Rev. xxi. 18. ss. with Tob. xiii. 16. s. [a]

[a) This is merely an instance of the same figurative language, which of itself is by no means sufficient to establish the position of the author. Tr.]

§ 241. Of the Author of the book of Tobit.

From what has been said it is evident that the command given by Raphael, according to the Greek text, xii. 20., that what had taken place should be written down, is nothing more than a recommendation of the book, as being written at the command of an angel. This command, therefore, which is not given in the Vulgate, is merely an ornament of style. It is true that Tobit speaks, i. 3—iii. 6., in the first person and in a simple way; but this is no proof that this portion of the book was written by Tobit himself, or by some person different from the author of the remainder of the work, which speaks of Tobit only in the third person: for the change of persons may readily be attributed to the fancy of the writer, as the orientals take great liberties in changing the person in which they write.Ilgen divides the book into three parts, (I. c. i. 1-iii. 6.; II. c. iii. 7— . xii. 22. and c. xiv.; III. c. xiii.,) which he supposes to be the productions of three different authors. But the arguments which he adduces in support of his opinion are far-fetched and forced, and the circumstances on which he founds them may be more easily accounted for in other ways. See Germ. Introd. P. II. Sect. IV. § 241. p. 905. s. [a]

[a) See also the arguments of Ilgen in DE WETTE, Einleit. † 310. anm. h). Tr.]

§ 242. Versions of the book of Tobit.

The Vulgate version is by Jerome, who says of it, Præf. in Tob., "I cannot but wonder at the importunity of your demands; for you require me to clothe in the Latin language a book written in the Chaldee tongue, and that too the book of Tobit, which the Hebrews have separated from the catalogue of the holy scriptures, and classed with the writings which they call hagiographa. I have done enough to satisfy your desires but not my own wishes. They find fault with our Hebrew studies, and accuse us of transferring such books as these into the Latin language, against their canon. But as I think it preferable to incur the condemnation of Pharisees, and to obey the commands of the bishops, I have done it to the best of my ability. As the Chaldee language has a close affinity to the Hebrew, I obtained a skilful interpreter of both languages, and setting apart a day for the work, made him interpret the Chaldee to me in Hebrew words, which, as he uttered them, I again dictated in the Latin language to a secretary. Such a precipitate method of procedure could hardly produce a faithful and accurate version. The Jew rendering the Chaldee into Hebrew, may have committed many errors, the number of which was, without doubt, enlarged by Jerome, when he dictated it extempore in Latin, as it was interpreted to him in Hebrew. This is enough to account for the frequent differences between the Vulgate version and the Greek text. -There is extant also another older Latin version, made from the Greek text, which has been published by SABATIER in his Bibliorum Sacrorum Lat. vers. antiq. 1751.—The Syriac version is of an uncertain age, and has

* ["Mirari non desino exactionis vestrae instantiam; exigitis enim, ut librum Chaldaeo sermone conscriptum ad Latinum stilum traham, librum utique Tobiae, quem Hebraei de catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantes, his, quae hagiographa memorant, manciparunt. Feci satis desiderio vestro, non meo studio. Arguunt et nos Hebraeorum studia, et imputant nobis, contra suum canonem Latinis auribus ista transferre. Sed melius esse judicans, Pharisaeorum displicere judicio, et episcoporum jussionibus deservire, institi ut potui. Et quia vicina est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni Hebraico, utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem reperiens, unius diei laborem arripui, et quidquid ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc ego accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposui."]

been made from the Greek text. It is printed in the fourth volume of the London Polyglot.- -That work contains also two Hebrew versions of this book, of no great antiquity. The first of these, made from the Greek text, was first published by Paul Fagius at the end of the Sentences of Ben Sirach, 1542, and has since been printed at Constantinople in 1617. The other, published by Sebastian Munster in 1542, seems to have been made from a Latin version.—All these versions differ from each other in many respects, but it is difficult to determine whether the discrepancies originated with the translators themselves, or are the fault of transcribers.[a]

[a) See DE WETTE, Einleit. § 310. anm. Tr.]

CHAPTER V.

OF THE BOOK OF JUDITH.

§ 243. Contents of the Book.

NEBUCHADNEZZAR, king of Nineveh, in the twelfth year of his reign, being injured by the warlike incursions which were made on the frontiers of Ragau by Arphaxad, king of Media and founder of Ecbatana, obtains from the neighbouring nations some auxiliary troops. He sends also to others more distant, which are recounted in a geographical order altogether peculiar, and entirely different from that of their real situations; these all dismiss his ambassadors without any marks of honour. Nebuchadnezzar on this account resolves to ruin them, and, after having conquered and slain Arphaxad, sends Holofernes with a numerous army, who brings great calamities upon those nations, which are again enumerated, in a still more extraordinary geographical arrangement. Notwithstanding the voluntary submission of the inhabitants of the sea coasts, who became terrified by these proceedings, Holofernes plunders their cities, burns their groves, and breaks in pieces their idols, that Nebuchadnezzar alone may be worshipped as God. After this, having pitched his camp in the plain of Esdraelon, he remains at rest a whole month, C. i-iii.—The Jews, however, who had lately returned from captivity, and had restored the temple and worship of God, prepare for war under the direction of the high priest and the elders. The high priest Joachim write's to the inhabitants of the cities of Bethylua (according to the Vulgate, Bethulia) and Betomesthaim, which were on the borders of Esdraelon, to guard carefully the passes of the moun