What About That Dog in Tobit?

Leave a reply

For anyone who cares to look, the textual history of Tobit is more than a little confusing. For a long time we only had two Greek texts (ok, and a middle-way third Greek), but then we found significant fragments of Tobit in the Dead Sea Scrolls and now we have three languages of record: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Fortunately, scholars have delved deep into all the material and come up with significant results. (I have covered it a bit before.) Oh yeah, and then there’s that dog—he’s part of the story too!

 

First Things First: A Chart

How many texts of Tobit are there? What are we really looking at?

Greek I Shorter recension
Greek II Longer recension; 1700 lines longer; text in Sinaiticus
Greek III Only Tobit 6:8–13:6; mediates between Greek I and Greek II
Aramaic 4Q196 Tob 1:17, 1:19–2:2, 3:9–15, 6:14–17, 6:19–7:3, 13:6–12, 13:12–14:3
Aramaic 4Q197 Tob 4:21–5:1, 5:12–14, 5:19–6:12, 6:12–19, 6:19–7:10, 8:21–9:4
Aramaic 4Q198 Tob 14:2–6, 14:10
Aramaic 4Q199 Tob 7:12
Hebrew 4Q200 Tob 3:6, 3:10–11, 4:3–9, 10:7–9, 11:10–12, 12:20–13:4, 13:13–14, 13:18–14:2

OK, But Tell Me About the Dog

The dog appears in Tobit twice, at 6:1–2 and 11:4. Here I’m quoting the NRSV-CE of Tobit:

  • So she stopped weeping. The young man went out and the angel went with him; and the dog came out with him and went along with them. So they both journeyed along, and when the first night overtook them they camped by the Tigris river. (Tob 6:1–2 NRSVCE)
  • As they went on together Raphael said to him, “Have the gall ready.” And the dog went along behind them. (Tob 11:4 NRSVCE)

Now, go flip open your Bible. If you have the NABRE, you can find the dog in 6:2, but if you have the RSVCE, there’s no dog there. Why not?

 

Dogs Tell No Tales (About the Text of Tobit)

The dog is the key! Well, not quite, but the dog is a great indicator that our text of Tobit is inherited in multiple forms. Greek I is shorter, so most scholars thought it was better, according to the text-critical principle, lectio brevior potior, “shorter reading is better.” They were wrong. The longer Greek II is more original, as confirmed by those Dead Sea Scroll fragements. As I have explained before when considering the differences between the RSV-2CE and the ESV-CE, Tobit is crucial:

The RSV-2CE of Tobit relies on the 1957 RSV Apocrypha translation, which was based on the shorter Greek text of Tobit (Greek I represented in Vaticanus and Alexandrinus), while all modern translations of Tobit, like the ESV-CE, rely on the longer Greek text (Greek II represented by Sinaiticus). Greek II is about 1700 words longer than Greek I and it serves as the basis for the Nova Vulgata rendition of Tobit in Latin. Greek II is also confirmed as the best text of Tobit by the 1995 publication of long fragments of Tobit from the Dead Sea Scrolls in Hebrew and Aramaic by Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, SJ.

Why does 1957 matter to us? Up until the early 1960s, scholars maintained preference for Greek I. However, scholarly opinion changed and it became clear from careful study that Greek II was more original. This opinion was confirmed by the 1995 publication by Fitzmyer of the Dead Sea fragments. All contemporary translations are based on Greek II with the help of the fragments.

 

But Where Is the Dog?

The dog appears only once in the shorter Greek I recension—hence, why it shows up only once in the RSV (11:4). But the dog appears two times in the Greek II, so it shows up two times in more contemporary translations (6:2 and 11:4 in NRSV, ESV-CE, NABRE). But does the dog appear in Hebrew or Aramaic? If you carefully comb through all those references in my chart, you’ll notice that 11:4 does not appear in any of the five fragments, but since the Greek texts agree on the dog there, everyone finds the dog at 11:4—the fragments are simply incomplete. But one of the fragments, 4Q197 does include 6:2—so does it have the dog? More on that in a second, but first, the often-overlooked NABRE Textual Notes also include this tidbit:

6:2: The dog . . . with them: so GII; VL: et canis secutus est eos; similarly Vg. GI and P omit.

So that means, Greek II and the Old Latin (VL=Vetus Latina) include the dog at 6:2, but the Vulgate, Greek I and Peshitta (Syriac edition) omit the dog at 6:2.

Well, Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer did the hard work of reconstructing the text of Tobit 6:2 from a fragment riddled with holes and gives us this:

[2 and] the [ange]l (was) with him, and [the dog wen]t [along, and] together [they traveled.] And there followed for them (quoted by Carey Moore, Tobit, Anchor Bible 40A [Doubleday, 1996] p. 210).

Does the dog appear in the Aramaic? So, yes and no. The Aramaic word for dog, kelev, does not appear, but from the spacing of the letters and losses in the fragment, it seems that there is just enough space for it as reconstructed. So the 4Q197 fragment included the dog originally, but the actually word on the page has been lost to the ravages of time.

It might take a lot of scholarly headaches to arrive at a solution, but the story of the dog in Tobit helps us see the value of textual criticism. If it weren’t for the dog, we might not have bothered to notice that there are two different versions of the Greek, that the longer one is better and that the original Aramaic text included two appearances for the dog. So, for dog-lovers everywhere, Tobit is the book for you!

Shoutout to one of my professors, Dr. Edward Cook, for collecting references in literature to Tobit’s Dog: https://ralphriver.blogspot.com/2005/04/tobits-dog.html

Have You Been Reading the Wrong Version of Jeremiah?

Leave a reply

Here’s a mind-bending thought about Jeremiah from Michael B. Shepherd: What if the Masoretic Text version of Jeremiah is not in agreement with the canon’s own interpretation of Jeremiah as represented by Ezekiel and Daniel?

Greek, Hebrew and Divine Inspiration

In his new commentary, where he backtranslates from the Greek Septuagint text of Jeremiah to Hebrew, he struggles with the problem of divine inspiration. He says,

“A biblical doctrine of inspiration, not to mention the exigencies of making a translation and commentary, requires a careful text-critical decision about which edition of Jeremiah is God-breathed and superintended by the Spirit” (p. 18).

The version of Jeremiah in our modern Bibles is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text. It’s the gold standard for the Old Testament in general. However, we have always had an alternate Greek version of Jeremiah that comes in a different order, has certain “pluses” and “minuses” versus the Hebrew text and generally reads differently. The Greek text is about one seventh shorter than the Hebrew text, according to computerized analyses.

Hebraica Veritas

Now normally, you’d be thinking: “Why does this matter? The ancient Israelites spoke Hebrew, not Greek, so the Hebrew text must be better.” Often this is the case and goes with St. Jerome’s dictum, Hebraica veritas. But in this case, things get really dicey. While the Dead Sea Scrolls contained a small handful of fragmentary Jeremiah manuscripts, two fragments are of great interest here: 4QJerb (9:22–10:18) and 4QJerd (43:3–9). These two fragments, dated to about 200 BC, agree with the Septuagint version against the Hebrew Masoretic text!

Two Significant Changes in Jeremiah’s Message

Again, normally you’d think: “Ah, no big deal. It’s probably just minor spelling variations and a few pronouns.” But again, not correct. If these two fragments are definitive, they show that the “proto-Masoretic” Hebrew Vorlage of Septuagint Jeremiah is more ancient than the Hebrew. And remember that the earlier edition of Jeremiah is substantially shorter—one seventh shorter than MT Jeremiah. Beyond that, Shepherd argues, that the “theological message” of the book changes dramatically from the original version to the MT version in two ways:

  1. He says, “In the first edition, the mysterious enemy from the north (Jer. 1:13–15; LXX 25:1–13; et al.) is never identified with a historical enemy. This leaves open the possibility of an eschatological enemy, which is the way Ezekiel reads the prophecy (Ezek. 38:14–17; cf. LXX Num 24:7; Rev 20:8). In the section edition [MT], the enemy from the north is identified with Babylon (e.g. MT Jer. 25:1–13).” (pp. 16-17)
  2. The second difference is more subtle—that the first edition of Jeremiah leaves the interpretation of the prophecy of the seventy years (25:11; 29:10) open-ended, so that it could be about a literal historical fulfillment (as Daniel 9:1–19 understands it) or “symbolic of a complete indefinite period (cf. Gen 4:24; Matt. 18:22)” as in Daniel 9:24–27 (p. 17). But the second edition of Jeremiah 25:11, presented in the MT, “limits the prophecy to a historical fulfillment” because it identifies the enemy as Babylon.

What Shepherd is arguing is profound, though the details are subtle. He is saying that the earlier edition of Jeremiah, the proto-Masoretic Hebrew represented by the Septuagint Greek translation, is the “earlier, shorter edition…the open-ended, potentially eschatological edition read by Ezekiel and Daniel” (p. 17). He is saying that the books of Ezekiel and Daniel show familiarity with the first edition of Jeremiah and interpret it in an eschatological way that is closed off by the Masoretic second edition. If he is right about this, then this is a marvelous example of Scripture interpreting Scripture to correct the tradition. We’ve been reading the wrong version of Jeremiah for centuries!

Comparing MT and LXX Passages in Jeremiah

You can see the difference he’s talking about pretty clearly in Jeremiah 25:9

MT

LXX
…behold, I will send for all the tribes of the north, declares the Lord, and for Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction, and make them a horror, a hissing, and an everlasting desolation. (Jer 25:9 ESV-CE) …behold, I am sending for and I will take a paternal family from the north, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all nations around it, and I will utterly devastate them and render them into an annihilation and into a hissing and into an everlasting disgrace. (Jer 25:9 NETS (Primary Texts))

The prophecy of the seventy years is likewise quite distinct:

MT

LXX
This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. (Jer 25:11 ESV-CE) And the whole land shall become an annihilation, and they shall be slaves amongst the nations seventy years. (Jer 25:11 NETS (Primary Texts))

Why Write a Commentary on a Text that Does Not Exist?

It’s easy to see why Shepherd felt compelled to write such a seemingly strange commentary—backtranslating the Greek to the Hebrew, then commenting on this theoretical text that does not exist in any manuscript. Why would he do it? He’s recovering the text of Jeremiah that we should be reading, the text that corresponds with the most ancient fragments of the book that we have discovered, the text that is closest to the life of the prophet himself, the text that other biblical prophets were reading and interpreting, the text that stands behind the Greek version that we do have.

Do I think that we’ll see new Bible translations coming out that work from Shepherd’s backtranslation to present the text of Jeremiah? No, the MT is firmly entrenched as the standard biblical text for the Hebrew Bible, but text criticism sure does uncover some thorny problems that take a lot of work to sort out! Shepherd demonstrates the importance of this kind of work, the perennial value of the Septuagint witness and how careful textual study can lead to amazing results.

Saint Paul Seminary

Leave a reply
Saint Paul Seminary

Saint Paul Seminary

Big news! I just started a new job as a faculty member at Saint Paul Seminary School of Divinity, which is part of the University of Saint Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. I have been appointed Professor of Sacred Scripture and Director of the Institute for Catholic Theological Formation. I am very grateful for the long-time Dean, Dr. Christopher Thompson, and for the Rector, Fr. Joseph Taphorn for putting their trust in me and welcoming me to the Seminary faculty. I am also grateful for the trust placed in me by Archbishop Hebda in granting me an ecclesiastical appointment to teach.

Saint Paul Seminary takes as its slogan, “Joyful Catholic Leaders.” I think that’s a great way to think about the work we are doing–forming men for the priesthood and diaconate, forming lay pastoral leaders, rejoicing in the truth and bringing the message of the Gospel to a world in desperate need of it. It is a joy to be part of yet another faculty contributing to the renewal of the Church in the postmodern world. I am also very appreciative of being part of a wider university community, with many wonderful faculties pursuing the truth in many diverse disciplines. The campus of the University of Saint Thomas is truly alive with intellectual ferment. What an amazing place!

As many of my readers know, I have been teaching for many years on the faculty of the Augustine Institute. It’s been a great run and I will miss my friends there immensely. I wish them the very best in their work!

It’s true that Minnesota might be a little chillier than Colorado, but everyone seems to like it here and I believe that in time I will blend right in. So, look forward to new reports from the new “mission field” of the North Star State. Who knows what’s in store!

Video: Finding God in the Age of Distraction

Leave a reply

Recently, I was invited to give a parish mission at Christ, Prince of Peace Catholic Church in Manchester, Missouri–affectionately known as “CPOP”. They streamed the talks to YouTube for your viewing pleasure.

The first one is Finding God in the Age of Distraction, where I take on the problem we are all confronting–how to live a spiritual life with a smartphone in your pocket. It’s not easy! I present some of the statistics that you’ve probably heard about how much we use our phones and then dive into some strategies for overcoming the problem and reconnecting with God:

The second talk you might have heard before, as it is based on my book Suffering: What Every Catholic Should Know: 

Thanks to Fr. Christopher Dunlop, Fr. Gerson Penna and Fernanda Thurmond for inviting me!

Interview with Bryan from Across the Canon

Leave a reply

Bryan, host of the new “Across the Canon” program on YouTube, and I talked about Pope Francis’ biblical initiatives, the Wisdom of Solomon and how biblical wisdom literature applies to Christian life. I hope you enjoy this conversation!

It’s available on video:

And you can find an audio version here:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-11-pope-francis-wisdom-literature-and-the/id1810192752?i=1000705544349

“The Witchery of Paltry Things”

1 Reply

Sometimes Bible translators go too far. They get a little too creative and they end up making strange sounding phrases in the target language. I have to believe that that is what happened with this weird phrase in the Book of Wisdom that the NABRE renders as “the witchery of paltry things” (Wisdom 4:12). What the heck is that?

Survey of Translations

Before we go back to the Greek, let’s survey some other translations of the phrase:

  • “the fascination of wickedness” (RSV, ESV, NRSV)
  • “the witchery of evil” (Winston AB)
  • “the bewitching of vanity” (Douay-Rheims)
  • “the fascination of evil” (New Jerusalem)
  • “the bewitching of naughtiness” (KJV, Brenton)
  • “the witchery of paltry things” (NABRE)
  • “la fascination de la frivolité”

Take a Look at the Greek

The Book of Wisdom was written in Greek, so that’s where we should start.

  • βασκανία γὰρ φαυλότητος

So what do these words mean? “Baskania” means something like “envy” (BDAG) or “malign influence, witchcraft, evil eye, envy” (Lust). It’s a weird word from a different cultural context. Looking at the whole verse in context might help us understand what the author is trying to convey:

He was caught up lest evil change his understanding or guile deceive his soul. For the fascination of wickedness obscures what is good, and roving desire perverts the innocent mind. (Wis 4:11-12 RSV)

The author is talking about Enoch, who was so righteous that he was zapped up to the heavenly realm (Gen 5:21-24). So “baskania” is about temptation, particularly about the power of worthless evil things to cloud moral judgment and seduce a person to sin. “Gar” is simply “for.” But “phaulotetos” is harder to explain. It means “meanness, paltriness, pettiness, badness” or even “plainness, simplicity” (abridged LSJ). Another lexicon has “meanness, worthlessness, frivolity” (Lust). 

Trying to Make a Better Translation

We have to admit that the idea is pretty obscure: the author is trying to describe the psychological side of temptation using an almost magical “law-of-attraction” kind of concept, where an evil/worthless thing bewilders the mind. The second concept to me feels extremely Greek and not very English–that is, that evil things, temptations are “worthless” or “paltry” or “mean (as in common).” Perhaps our forebears thought this way, but I don’t think our contemporaries do, so it makes translating hard. That is, while we might look on sin as bad or evil, we don’t usually think of it as petty or trivial (except, perhaps, when folks refer to things like “foibles” or “peccadilloes”). The other thing that is weird is that “phaulotetos” is singular in context, so probably we should not translate with a plural idea (like “paltry things”). Here are a couple of my suggestions to improve this phrase in English translation:

  • “the allure of triviality”
  • “the seduction of mediocrity”
  • “the enchantment of insignificance”
  • “the entrapment of irrelevance”

I have to admit that it is hard to come up with an intelligible English equivalent for this uncommon phrase, but I do feel that we could do better than “the witchery of paltry things”.

A Museum Accident of Biblical Proportions

Leave a reply

It’s every parent’s worst nightmare (ok, maybe not worst, but close): you take your 4-year-old child to the museum and he or she curiously touches something, accidentally shattering an irreplaceable artifact of human history that dates back millennia–and it just happened to a Dad at the Hecht Museum in Haifa in Israel this week, as the BBC reports:

Boy accidentally smashes 3,500-year-old jar on museum visit

Ugh! His four year old boy wanted to know what was in the giant amphora, grabbed at the rim to look and then it took a tumble. The rest is history:

Shay Levy, Hecht Museum

Shay Levy, Hecht Museum (via BBC)

Or, I guess, it was history. Now I think my blood pressure will go up even more next time I take my kids to a museum. This jar was from before 1500 BC. That means half a millennium before David and Solomon. It could be 4,000 years old. When a four-millennium old piece of pottery goes up against a four-year-old, we know who wins–and it’s not the jar. I would imagine that the Hecht museum curators are face-palming themselves over their desire to display artifacts without glass protection because of the “special charm” museum-goers feel. Oh well, I suppose by the time the eschaton arrives all clay jars will be smashed. I’m not sure which proverb to cite, but maybe “He who digs a pit will fall into it” (Eccl 10:8 ESV) or perhaps better would be Jeremiah’s prophecy about the broken flask: “So will I break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel, so that it can never be mended” (Jer 19:11 ESV). Keep a close eye on the artifacts next time you bring a little child to a museum or they might be so broken that they can never be mended again! 

Two TV Interviews with Bishop John Barres

Leave a reply

I recorded two TV interviews with Bishop John Barres of the Diocese of Rockville Centre and host Monsignor Jim Vlaun.

In this first conversation, we talk about the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture in general, the value of commentaries for Catholic faith and life, the long tradition of commentary writing, the growth in understanding of historical background, the need for the CCSS, the goals of Scripture study, Lectio Divina, and homily preparation.

Encounter – Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture Series, Part 1 from Catholic Faith Network on Vimeo.

The second conversation focuses on my volume in the CCSS on the Wisdom of Solomon. We talk about reading the Old Testament in light of the New (DV 16), the problem of over-specialization and the need for an integrated vision for Sacred Scripture, the date of Wisdom, the historical and literary background, Hellenistic Judaism, Alexandria, Solomon as a role model for Wisdom-seeking, the funeral reading of Wisdom 3, the hour of death, Wisdom’s critique of idol worship, the need to “love righteousness” (Wisd 1:1), and the illumination of the human intellect by the Wisdom of God.

Encounter – Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture Series, Part 2 from Catholic Faith Network on Vimeo.