Глава 1

The piety of Tobit and the trials sent down to him 1–9. Introduction to the narrative of the book about Tobit: the genealogy of Tobit, the loyalty of this Israeli to the single legal Jerusalem worship in the face of general religious disunity and the fall of the ten tribes of Israel from the house of David. 10–14. The piety and charity of Tobit in Assyrian captivity under the king Enemesar (Salmaneser) who was favorable to him. 15–20. Flight and disasters of Tobit under the cruel Sennacherib. 21–22. Return of Tobit to Nineveh under Saherdon (Esargaddon). Tob.1:1 The book of the tales of Tobit, the son of Tobiel, Hananilov, Aduilov, Gabael, from the tribe of Asiel, from the tribe of Naphtali, Comrade 1:2 who in the days of the Assyrian king Enemeser was taken captive from Tisbe, which is on the right side of Kidi Naphtali, in Galilee, above Asher. I, Tobit, have walked in the paths of truth and righteousness all the days of my life Comrade 1:3 And I did many good deeds to my brothers and to my people who came with me to the country of Assyria, to Nineveh. 1–3. The inscription of the book, indicating its main subject. The name "Tobit" is undoubtedly identical in origin and meaning with the name "Tobias", Heb. Tobiyyahu, Tobiyya (2 Chronicles XVII:8; Neh. IV:3, 7; Zech. VI:10, 14), from Hebrew means: “the good of Jehovah,” “the good of Jehovah,” etc.; in its present form represents the Hellenized form of the Hebrew name (similar to ' Ελισάβετ in Hebrew Elisheva). Tobit's long genealogy in the ascending line may indicate the nobility of Tobit's family and surname in the tribe of Naphtali (Tobit's genealogy is omitted in the Vulgate). The expression “book of legends” of Tobit, glory. “book of words” T., LXX βίβλος λόγων Τωβίτ, in modern times is understood mostly in the sense of genet. object “story of Tobit”, but it is quite acceptable to understand this expression as genet. subject: “the story of Tobit”, a written work of T.: in favor of the latter understanding they speak as consistently held until Chapter III. 6 tbsp. the form of narration on behalf of Tobit himself in the first person, and the direct evidence of the book that Tobit and Tobias, in accordance with the command of the Angel, not only verbally glorified God for all the good deeds, but also had to write down everything that happened (LXX: γράψατε, Vulg. scribite XII:20 cf. Art. and Tob. XIII:1), which, without a doubt, was performed by them, so that Tobit and Tobiah could have owned at least some of the original notes that formed the basis for the content of the book (cf. Prof. Drozdov, pp. 250–257). The place of Tobit's former residence in Palestine is determined by the expression “from Thisbe, which is on the right side of Chidi Naphtali in Galilee above Asher” (v. 2). Thisba mentioned here or, according to the Sinai list LXX, Thebe in the tribe of Naphtali (in the Vulgate the name Thisva is omitted), next, in the north of Palestine - later Galilee and west of the Jordan should be distinguished from Thesva, the homeland of the prophet Elijah (1 Kings XVII: 1) - a city on the eastern side of the Jordan in Gilead (cf. Onomast, 517): perhaps precisely to prevent the confusion of these two cities, or in view of the little-known nature of Thisbe, in which Tobit lived before his migration into captivity, the position of the last city is determined (v. 2) in great detail: it lay on the right side, i.e. to the south (when determining the position of countries and localities, the Jews took the east as their starting point, so that the eastern side was considered the front, the western back, the southern right and the northern left) from Kidi Naphtali in Galilee above Asher, έκ δεξιών Κυδίων ( Κοδίως ) τής Νεφθαλείμ έν τη Γαλιλαία υπεράνω Ασήρ . The name Cydias here refers to the city, which in the Hebrew text of the Bible is called Qedesch, in the LXX Ka δής, or Κέδες, in I. Flavius Κεδέση, Κέδαδα, Κύδισα), namely, in contrast to the cities of this name in the tribe of Judah (Josh. XV:23) and Issachar (1 Chron. VI:72), here Cydia or Kedesh is called a Galilean city belonging to the tribe of Naphtali. It was one of the main and most ancient cities of northern Palestine or Galilee: it is already mentioned in the Tell Amarna letters and Egyptian inscriptions: it was the capital of one of the Canaanite kings defeated by Joshua (Joshua XII:22), then became the lot of Naphtali (Joshua XIX:37), was given to the Levites (1 Chron. VI:72) and became a place of refuge for unwitting murderers (Joshua XX:7, XXI:32: in both of these places it is called “Kedesh in Galilee”), was the homeland of Barah (Judges IV:6); was subjected, along with other adjacent cities, to devastation under the Israeli king Pekah by Tiglath-Pelassar, king of Assyria (2 Kings XV:29), but then was settled after the captivity and is mentioned in the era of the Maccabees (1 Maccabees XI:63, 73). According to Josephus, Cyprus lies in Upper Galilee (northern or pagan Galilee, Isa. IX:1; 1 Mac. V:15), between the region of Tire and Galilee (Ant. V, 1, 24, XVIII, 5, 6), representing the border fortress of the Tyrians (Jud. War, IV, 2, 3). See Onomast, 583; at Prof. Drozdova, s. 417–418; Tolkov. Bible vol. II, p. 327 and 516. Now on the site of Kedes, northwest of Lake Semakhonite, Bahrat el-Khule - an ancient lake. Merom, there is a small village of Kadesh with many ancient sarcophagi. Robinson, Palast. III, 622. Buhl, Geogr. d. alt. Palast., 8, 235. By Asher (v. 2), interpreters usually understand the city of Hazor, taken by Joshua after the death of the king of this city, Navin (Joshua XI:1 ff. Book of Judgment IV:2), then belonging to the tribe of Naphtali (Joshua XIX:36-37); it was fortified by Solomon 1 Kings. IX:15, after which Tiglath-Pelasser was taken along with Kedes (2 Kings XV:29). According to I. Flavius ​​(Ancient V, 5, 1), it lay on Lake Semakhonite (Merom), now the Tell el-Harravi hill with the remains of ancient structures. See Onomast. 167; prof. Olesnitsky, Holy Land, vol. II, p. 479; prof. Drozdova, s. 419–421; Tolkov. Bible vol. II, p. 324. Some interpreters, based on the reading of Vulg.: post viam, quae ducit ad occidenten (in the Sinai code this corresponds to: οπίσω δυσμών ηλίου, by analogy with Deut. XI:30), not without reason see here the location of Thisbe on the road, or to the west of the road that ran through Upper Galileo in the direction from east to west, i.e. from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea (one such road went from Acre in a northerly direction through the mountains of Naphtali to Caesarea Philippi, the other ran near Kedesh, Hazor and Thisbe). See prof. Drozdova, s. 424. The captivity of Tobit and his fellow tribesmen is attributed in the book. Tobit to the Assyrian king Enemesar (according to the texts of LXX and Slav. Russian) or Shalmaneser (according to Vulg. Chald. Hebr. Munst.): the latter is fully consistent with the testimony of 2 Kings. XVII: 3–6, XVIII: 9–11 about the destruction of the kingdom of Israel and the captivity of the inhabitants by Shalmaneser (usually called Shalmaneser IV), so that the taking of Tobit into captivity falls at the time of the final destruction of Samaria and the kingdom of Israel under its last king Hoshea, or in the 6th year of the reign of Hezekiah. Both 2 Kings and Bk. Tobit here literally diverges from the evidence of the Assyrian monuments, according to which it was not Shalmaneser, but Sargon, who finally took Samaria and resettled the Israelites to Assyria, but this apparent contradiction is easily resolved partly by the consideration that one of these kings - it was Sargon - only completed the work of the siege of Samaria and the captivity of the Israelites, begun by the other - Shalmaneser, and partly by the possibility that these two names belong to one and the same to the Assyrian king (see Prof. Drozdov, pp. 432–440; cf. Interpretations. Bible vol. II, p. 519). The evidence in question also does not contradict the book. Tobit and the testimony of 2 Kings. XV:29, according to which Shalmaneser IV’s predecessor, Tiglath-pelasser III, under Pahahah of Israel and Ahaz, by the way, “took Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, the whole land of Naphtali, and resettled them in Assyria,” since in this case there could have been a partial eviction of the inhabitants from the territory of the tribe of Naphtali. According to the book of Tobit, Nineveh served as the place of residence of Tobit and some of his fellow tribesmen in Assyria (Tob. I: 3, VII: 3, XI: 14–16, XIV: 1). This evidence, contrary to the opinion of some researchers of the book. Tobit, we agree with the testimony of 2 Kings. XVII:6, XVIII:11 about the territory of settlement of the Israelites in Assyrian captivity - and this is all the more so since according to the book of Tobit, as in 2 Kings, there were Israeli settlers in the cities of Media: Ragah or Raga (Tob. V:1, 20, V:6, IX:2) and Ecbatana (Tob. III:7, VII:1, XIV:12–13). 2b-3. (LXX 3rd century). The distinctive property and main advantage of Tobit was his whole life loyalty to the paths of truth, αληθείας, i.e. faith and reverence for the fathers, and truth, δικαιοσύνης - active love and charity for poor fellow tribesmen, for which there were quite a few reasons for this in captivity (cf. v. 17). Tob.1:4 When I lived in my country, in the land of Israel, while still a youth, then the whole tribe of Naphtali my father was in revolt from the house of Jerusalem, chosen from all the tribes of Israel, to offer sacrifices to all of them, where the church of the village of the Most High was consecrated and established for all generations forever. Comrade 1:5 As all the tribes that were revolted sacrificed to Baal the young man, so did the house of Naphtali my father. Tob.1:6 But I alone often went up to Jerusalem for the feasts, as was prescribed for all Israel by an everlasting statute, with the firstfruits and tithes of the produce of the land and the firstfruits of the fleece of the sheep, Com.1:7 And he gave it to the priests, the sons of Aaron, for the altar: the tithe of all the produce he gave to the sons of Levi who ministered in Jerusalem; he sold the other tithe, and every year he went and spent it in Jerusalem; Comrade 1:8 And the third he gave to whomever it was appropriate, as Devorah my father’s mother commanded me, when I became an orphan after my father. 4–8. Tobit’s loyalty to the pure faith of his fathers and the lawful divinely established cult was expressed even in the days of his youth while he was in his homeland - in the fact that, with the general domination in the kingdom of Israel, the cult of calves introduced by Jeroboam I (v. 5, see 1 Kings XII: 19, 23, 30, see Interpretations. Bibl. vol. II), and with the general falling away Israelis from Jerusalem, as a religious and political center, - Tobit alone with a few unmissably visited the Jerusalem temple, zealously making there the sacrifices established by the law and theocratic offerings (vv. 4, 6–8, fn. Ex. XXII: 29, XXIII: 17; Deut. XVI: 16–17). The possibility for Tobit to make these pilgrimage journeys in the last days of the kingdom of Israel is confirmed by the news of 2 Chr. XXX chapter, that in response to the call of the Jewish king Hezekiah to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem, some residents of the kingdom of Israel arrived there, which the last king of Israel Hosea did not interfere with (2 Kings XVII: 1–2, see Commentaries. Bible vol. II, cf. Prof. Drozdov, pp. 430–431). Unlike vol. LXX and others, the Vulgate speaks of Tobit in the 3rd person, and not in the first, like other texts. In accepted Greek, Slavic-Russian. texts there is a double historical and archaeological inaccuracy in Art. 5–8. In the kingdom of Israel they made sacrifices, according to Art. 5, τή Βαάλ τή δαμάλει, glor.: Youth of Baal, Russian. synod.: To Baal, youth. But nowhere in the Bible is there any mention of the cult of Baal the youth, and they never had such a cult: obviously, two different cults were mixed into one: the cult of the golden calves, introduced by Jeroboam I (1 Kings XII:28 ff.), and the cult of Baal, which developed in the kingdom of Israel with the time of Ahab (1 Kings XVI:31 ff., see Commentary. Bible vol. II). In fact, here, Tov. 1:5, this refers to the state (from the time of Jeroboam I) cult of the Kingdom of Israel - the cult of calves; to Sinai code. LXX in Art. 5 is the correct expression: τώ μόσχώ Khald. t. Taurus, in the Vulgate with an explanatory extension: ad vitulos aureos, quos Ieroboam fecerat, rex Israel. The accepted text of the LXX, Slavic-Russian, is equally confused. in 6, 8, the offerings prescribed by the law, which Tobit made in Jerusalem. So here, in Art. 6, completely different theocratic duties are unsuccessfully combined into one: 1) tithe of livestock, δεκάται τών κτηνών (Lev. XXVII: 32–33 and 2) firstfruits of sheep wool, πρωτοκουραί τών προβάτων (Deut. XVIII:4). In Art. 7 about the so-called second tithe (τήν δευτέραν δεκάτην) in accepted Greek. i.e. it is said vaguely (it was offered 4 times during the Saturday cycle). In Art. 8 the so-called tithe of the poor, given to the poor every third year instead of the second tithe, was transformed, according to the accepted vol. LXX, Slavic-Russian, into the third tithe, which the Jews did not have at all (probably the offering of the tithe of the poor in the 3rd year gave reason to call it the third tithe), and its purpose is expressed in general: δίδουν, οίς καθήκει, glav.: giving, to whom it is appropriate, Russian: “I gave to whomever it was necessary, as Devora commanded me.” All these inaccuracies in the definition of theocratic offerings established by law and given by Tobit are avoided by the Greek. t. Sinaisk. list, the Vulgate completely omits all these details of a ritual nature (Blessed Jerome limits himself to only a general remark: haec et his similia), as well as the mention of the pious grandmother of Tobit Devora found in other texts (v. 8). Tob.1:9 Having reached manhood, I took a wife, Anna, from our father’s family, and begat Tobiah from her. Comrade 1:10 When I was taken captive to Nineveh, all my brothers and my fellow tribesmen ate of the food of the pagans, Comrade 1:11 But I guarded my life and did not eat, Tov.1:12 For I remembered God with all my soul. 9–12. The marriage of Tobit with Anna and the birth of a son took place, apparently, already in Assyrian captivity (according to the Vulgate, on the contrary, Tobit was taken into captivity with his wife and son: igitur, cum per captivitatem devenisset cum uxore sua et filio in civitatem Niniven cum omni tribu sua), since Tobit was in his homeland only in his adolescence (v. 4). Vulg. in Art. 9 there is an addition that Tobit, according to Vulg. – Tobias – he also gave his own name to his son Tobias: nomen suum imponens ei, – and another addition about the religious and moral upbringing of his son by his father: quem ab infantia timere Deum docuit et abstinere ab omni peccato. The piety of Tobit in captivity, as later of Daniel (Dan. I: 8), Judith (Jud. X: 5), Eleazar and the Maccabees (2 Mac. VII, ch.), was expressed (vv. 10–12) primarily in abstinence from pagan foods, έκ των άρτων των εθνών, - according to the important significance of the laws on food in the legislation of Moses (Lev. XI, Deut. XIV chapter; cf. Lev. VII: 23, 25, XVII: 10; Deut. XV, etc.). Nineveh (Jon. III Ch. Onomast. 748) - the capital of Assyria, lay on the left, eastern bank of the Tigris, opposite Mosul: now the villages of Kuyundzhik and Nebi-Yunus lie on its ruins. Comrade 1:13 And the Most High granted me mercy and favor with Enemesar, and I was his supplier; Comrade 1:14 And he went to Media, and gave ten talents of silver to Gabriel, the brother of Gabriel, in the Ragas of Media, for safekeeping. Comrade 1:15 When Enemessar died, his son Sennacherib reigned in his place, whose ways were not constant, and I could no longer go to Media. Comrade 1:16 In the days of Enemessar I did many good deeds to my brothers: Comrade 1:17 I gave my bread to the hungry, my clothing to the naked, and if I saw anyone from my tribe die and thrown beyond the wall of Nineveh, I buried him. Comrade 1:18 I also secretly buried those whom King Sennacherib killed when he returned from Judea, put to flight. And he killed many in his rage. And the king looked for the corpses, but they were not found. Comrade 1:19 One of the Ninevites went and reported to the king that I was burying them; then I disappeared. Having learned that they were trying to kill me, I ran away from the city out of fear. Tob.1:20 And all my property was stolen, and nothing was left to me except Anna my wife, and Tobiah my son. 13–20 . God's favor towards the pious Tobit was expressed by the merciful attitude towards him of King Yenemesser - Shalmaneser, who made Tobit his “supplier”, LXX: αγοραστής, glor.: merchant; This occupation gave Tobit the opportunity to acquire some wealth and entrust it to a certain Gabael in the Median Ragas. In the Vulgate, this message is replaced by a remark that is more consistent with the moral tendency of the translation, that the king of Assyria gave Tobit freedom to go where he wants and do what he pleases; dedit illi potestatem quocumque vellet ire, habens libertatem quaecumqe facere voluisset. But the idea of ​​the Greek text, as simpler and more natural, deserves decisive preference over the obviously artificial construction of the Vulgate, the fact that in the book of Tobit, I: 14; IV:1; V:5 and others. The Median city of Raghi seems to have existed during the Assyrian rule, which gave reason to some researchers (Jan, Berthold and others) to deny the historical authenticity of the book - on the grounds that, according to Strabo (Geograph. XI, 13, 6), this city was built much later, and precisely by Seleucus Nicator. But in reality, Ragi-Ekbatana existed in ancient times, according to some, a thousand years before our era, as evidenced by the mention of this city in the Avesta (Spigel Fr. Avesta, I Bd. 565) and in Medo-Persian legends and wedge-shaped inscriptions (SN Rilter. C. Die Erdkande von Asien. Bd. VI. I Abtl. s.s. 29 ff. 601, 604), and the testimony of Strabo, as well as the similar testimony of Pliny the Elder (Nat. Hist. liv. VI, p. 14) about the construction of Rag-Ecbatana by Seleukos should be understood in the sense of a message about the restoration, restoration of a city that had existed for a long time. See prof. Drozdova, s. 404, 447–450. The Vulgate changes the thought of the Greek. text in Art. 15-17 according to the moral tendency of the translation: about the 10 talents acquired by Tobit here (v. 16) it is noted that they were received by Tobit in the form of a reward from the king, quibus honoratus fuerat a rege (not through commercial enterprises). The leaving of this sum by Tobit with Gabael in the Vulgate is turned into an act of charity by Tobit in relation to Gabael, who is called needy (egentem, v. 17). Likewise, Tobit’s very travels to Media are given in the Vulgate through the remark that Tobit went to his fellow tribesmen, giving them saving instructions (monita salutis art. 15). But in reality, as other texts of the book of Tobit testify, in v. 13 et d. of the first chapter depicts the social and material situation of Tobit in captivity and, in relation to other data of this kind contained in the book of Tobit, this situation is, in general, quite favorable. Only with the accession to the Assyrian throne, famous from 2 Kings. 18–19; Is. 36–37; 2 Par. 32 Sennacherib (Heb. Sangerib), the situation of Tobit, as well as of the captive Israelites in Assyria in general, worsened. Tobit, apparently, lost his position as a court supplier and could no longer go to Media, while his fellow tribesmen were persecuted by Sennacherib, who, apparently, after his flight from Judea (2 Kings XIX: 35–36; 2 Chronicles XXXII: 21; Isa. XXXVII: 36–37) took out his anger on the captive Israelites and killed many of them “in his rage” (v. 18). (Sn. Interpretations. Bibl. vol. II, p. 525). Tobit could not now go to Media (v. 15), probably due to political complications in this country - the beginning of the unification of the Median tribes in order to overthrow the Assyrian yoke, why access to Media for peaceful relations was closed (v. 15). Tobit brought upon himself special hatred and persecution of Sennacherib because he, usually doing good to his fellow tribesmen (vv. 16-17a), was not afraid to do good work to executed Jews, burying the dead (17b-18). He escaped from the execution that threatened Tobit by fleeing from Nineveh, and all his property was stolen (vv. 19-20). Comrade 1:21 But fifty days had not passed before his two sons killed him and fled to the mountains of Ararat. And his son Saherdan reigned in his stead, and he placed Ahiahar Anael, my brother’s son, over the entire countable part of his kingdom and over all the government. Tov.1:22 And Ahiachar interceded for me, and I returned to Nineveh. Ahiachar was also the cupbearer and the keeper of the ring, and the steward and treasurer; and Saherdan placed him second in line; he was my brother's son. 21–22. The forced flight of Tobit from Nineveh lasted only about 50 days (these 50 days elapsed precisely from the day of Tobit’s removal from Nineveh, and not from the moment of Sennacherib’s return from the Palestine campaign, as argued, for example, by Koenig, Koehler, Reisch, who see in such an indication of the period from Sennacherib’s unsuccessful campaign to violent death its contradiction to history, in reality, obviously, about no a contradiction of this kind is out of the question) as if in punishment for Sennacherib’s cruelty towards the captive Israelites and, in particular, towards Tobit, this king was killed by his two sons (v. 21, see 2 Kings XIX:37; Isa. XXXVII:33), who fled to the mountains of Ararat. This is the testimony of the book. Tobit, completely consistent with the testimony of 2 Kings. XIX ch. and I. XXXVII chapter, apparently disagrees with extra-biblical data - from Berosus, Abyden, in the Babylonian Chronicle and the inscription of the Babylonian king Nabonidus - according to which Sennacherib was killed by his son alone, but this disagreement in no way has the nature of a contradiction, and is easily resolved with a careful analysis of extra-biblical evidence (see Prof. Drozdov, p. 467–173). After Sennacherib, his son Sarhaddon (the 3rd son of Sennacherib, after his murderers Adramelech and Sharezer, Arrian called Axerdis), usually known under the name Asargaddon or Esarhaddon. During the reign of this ruler of Assyria, known for his generosity and gentleness, Tobit again returned to Nineveh, thanks to the intercession of his nephew Ahikar, to whom Esargaddon returned the high position at court that he had occupied under Sennacherib, but in the last years of this king he lost due to the machinations of his nephew Nadan or Haman (XIV: 10). The positions entrusted to Ahikar were important in the way of court life of the Assyrian kings, he was a) the chief cupbearer, οινοχόος b) the keeper of the royal ring or the royal seal (with which state documents were sealed), ό επί τού δακτυλίου; c) a steward, διοικηεής, i.e., probably not only in the sense of a modern minister of the court, but also as a ruler of the country - like a minister of the interior (cf. 1 Kings IV; Commentary. Bibl. vol. II) and d) a chief treasurer, εκλογιστής - like a minister of finance (cf. Prof. Drozdov, pp. 475–479). Although the story of Ahikar is included in the book of Tobit purely episodically (Tov. I: 21–22, II: 10, XI: 17, XIV: 10), some researchers (for example, Harris, Kosken) are inclined to see in the legend of Ahikar the primary source for the entire content of the book of Tobit and attribute both one and the other to the realm of fiction. But in reality, the legend about Ahikar, which belongs to the so-called wandering tales, existed and exists under different names and in different versions among many peoples in languages: Syrian, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Greek, Slavic-Russian and Romanian, all the details of the legend about Ahikar coincide with the instructions in the book of Tobit about Ahikar: about his position as a dignitary under Sennacherib (Tob. I:21–22); about his charity to Tobit (Tov. II:10, XI:17), and about his salvation for charity from the nets of death laid out for him by Nadan or Haman (XIV:10), although the name of Tobit is not mentioned in any edition of the legend about Ahikar. The ideological similarity of this legend with the book of Tobit, of course, does not force us to assume that these two works are mutually dependent: both could independently arise from a common source-tradition. But in favor of the fact that Ahikar was not a fictional, but a historical person, speaks both of the position of Ahikar, under the historically famous Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esargaddon, the non-mention of the name Ahikar in the Assyrian canon of eponyms can be explained by another, Assyrian name A., and the wide popularity of Ahikar, as a sage or philosopher, in the East and West (see Prof. Drozdova, pp. 337–344). Thanks to Ahikar, Tobit was able to improve his material means and live in contentment, as can be seen from v. Chapter 1 II.