Andrew B.

Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

Tobits Context and Contacts in the Qumran Aramaic Anthology

Andrew B. Perrin
Trinity Western University

ABSTRACT: The debate over Tobits compositional language was invigorated by the discovery
of Aramaic and Hebrew copies of the work in Qumran cave four. The growing position among
scholars, however, is that Tobits literary-linguistic makeup is best accounted for by its
origination in the Aramaic language. The now widened collection of some thirty Aramaic texts
available from among the Qumran collection provides a fresh opportunity to re-read Tobit with
an eye for aspects of the books message and outlook that come into sharper relief when
contrasted and compared with its closest counterparts in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls. This
exploratory study details the central theological emphases and literary motifs that Tobit shares
with a core group of Aramaic writings including, but not limited to, 1 Enoch, Genesis
Apocryphon, Aramaic Levi Document, Testament of Qahat, Visions of Amram, and New
Jerusalem. Five points of correspondence with the aforementioned writings will be described: (i)
the preference for first-person voices, (ii) ancestral instruction on Israelite religious duties and
observance, (iii) insistence on endogamous marriages, (iv) eschatological outlooks of a new
Jerusalem, and (v) the awareness of idioms and motifs drawn from dream-vision traditions. Tobit
may be viewed as an important representative of the Aramaic heritage of ancient Judaism, since
in it we find the confluence of several key components of the thought world of the broader
Aramaic collection, of which Tobit was an essential part.

KEYWORDS: Tobit, Aramaic, Dead Sea Scrolls

1 Introduction: Tobits Natural Habitat in Second Temple Period Jewish Aramaic Literature

The original language of the book of Tobit has been a contentious issue in the history of research

on this ancient Jewish tale turned Christian Apocrypha. In view of the ongoing analysis of the

five fragmentary Aramaic copies and one Hebrew copy of the book of Tobit discovered in

Qumran cave four (4QpapToba [4Q196], 4QSchyenTob [4Q196a], 4QTobbe [4Q197200]), it

seems that the scales have tipped in current scholarship to favouring Aramaic as Tobits

1
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

compositional language.1 Very little headway, however, has been made beyond this complex

issue into how we conceive of Tobit as Aramaic literature in the mid-Second Temple period (ca.

3rd1st cent. BCE). Until relatively recently, part of this problem was the lack of sparring partners.

Apart from Aramaic Daniel, the imperial dispatches in the book of Ezra, the Elephantine finds,

and suspicions of the Aramaic precursors of some so-called pseudepigrapha, little was known of

ancient Judaisms Aramaic legacy. This changed drastically with the discovery of some thirty

Aramaic pre/non-sectarian writings in the Judaean Desert, most of which were unknown until

their modern recovery.2 The task of mapping the literary and theological contours of this

constellation of texts is ongoing and there is not a little debate among scholars about the nature,

scope, and cohesion of the Qumran Aramaic texts. The comparative studies and syntheses that

1
Surveys of this debate and the emerging consensus may be found in Carey A. Moore, Scholarly Issues in
the Book of Tobit before Qumran and after: An Assessment, JSP 5 (1989), pp. 6581; idem, Tobit (AB, 40A; New
York: Doubleday, 1996), pp. 3339; Richard A. Spencer, The Book of Tobit in Recent Research, CBR 7 (1999),
pp. 147180; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Tobit (CEJL; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), pp. 1828; Michaela Hallermayer,
Text und berlieferung des Buches Tobit (DCLS, 3; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), pp. 17579; and Andrew B.
Perrin, An Almanac of Tobit Studies: 20002014, CBR 13 (2014), pp. 10742.
The Qumran Tobit texts were published by Joseph Fitzmyer in J. C. VanderKam et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave
4. XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD, XIX; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 176. Hallermayers recent
edition and commentary is a valuable enhancement to aspects of these materials (Text und berlieferung des Buches
Tobit ). Beyers set of volumes on the Aramaic texts also includes transcriptions and corresponding German
translations of the Qumran Tobit fragments (Klaus Beyer, Die aramaischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den
Inschriften aus Palastina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen
Zitaten: Band 1 [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984], pp. 298300; Die aramaischen Texte:
Erganzungsband [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994], pp. 13447; and Die aramaischen Texte: Band 2
[Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004], pp. 17286). Hallermayer and Elgvin originally published
4QSchyenTob as an additional fragment of 4QToba (Michaela Hallermayer and Torleif Elgvin, Schyen ms. 5234:
Ein neues Tobit-fragment Vom Toten Meer, RevQ 22 [2006], pp. 45161). However, upon subsequent analysis this
fragment was shown to derive from a different manuscript altogether, and will be republished as such in a fresh
edition in Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artifacts from the Schyen Collection (ed. Torleif
Elgvin; LSTS, 71; London: Bloomsbury, forthcoming). It is rumored that another fragment of this Tobit manuscript
exists in an undisclosed private collection (Stuart Weeks, Restoring the Greek Tobit, JJS 44 [2013], pp. 115).
2
For the statistical representation of Aramaic literature among the Qumran collection, see Devorah Dimant,
The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community, in A. Hilhorst, . Puech, and E. Tigchelaar (eds.),
Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino Garca Martnez
(JSJSup, 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 197205; Katell Berthelot and Daniel Stkl Ben Ezra, Aramaica Qumranica:
Introduction, in K. Berthelot and D. Stkl Ben Ezra (eds.), Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference
on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence, 30 June2 July 2008 (STDJ, 94; Leiden: Brill, 2010), pp. 1-
12; and F. Garca Martnez, Scribal Practices in the Aramaic Literary Texts from Qumran, in J. Dijkstra, J.
Kroesen, and Y. Kuiper (eds.), Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity: Studies in the History of Religions in Honor of Jan
N. Bremmer (SHR, 127; Leiden: Brill, 2010), pp. 32941.

2
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

have been done, however, uncovered a surprising number of shared themes, interests, and genres

that obtain across clusters of these Aramaic writings.3 This network of similarities indicates that

there is much to gain from studying the Aramaic literature as a subset of writings within the

Qumran collection, even if there is considerable diversity in their unity.

While there has been some consideration of Tobit in the Aramaic texts en masse, two

studies in particular moved in this direction by describing aspects of Tobit that bear some

familial resemblance to other Aramaic works.4 To extend this metaphor, reading Tobit in the pale

of the Qumran Aramaic texts is something like attending a family reunion: after encountering a

number of its near or distant kin, one gains an enhanced understanding of the make-up of the

3
For preliminary assessments, see Elias J. Bickerman, Aramaic Literature, in The Jews in the Greek Age
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1988), pp. 5165; Ben Zion Wacholder, The Ancient JudaeoAramaic Literature
(500164 BCE): A Classification of Pre-Qumranic Texts, in L. H. Schiffman (ed.), Archaeology and History in the
Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin (JSPSup, 8; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1990), pp. 26782; Florentino Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from
Qumran (STDJ, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992); Devorah Dimant, Themes and Genres in the Aramaic Texts from Qumran,
in K. Berthelot and D. Stkl Ben Ezra (eds.), Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic
Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence, 30 June2 July 2008 (STDJ, 94; Leiden: Brill, 2010), pp. 1545; and Eibert
Tigchelaar, Aramaic Texts from Qumran and the Authoritativeness of Hebrew Scriptures: Preliminary
Observations, in M. Popovi (ed.), Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (JSJSup, 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010),
pp. 15571.
4
See George W. E. Nickelsburg, Tobit and Enoch: Distant Cousins with a Recognizable Resemblance, in
J. Neusner and A. J. Avery-Peck (eds.), George W. E. Nickelsburg in Perspective: An Ongoing Dialogue of
Learning (2 vols.; JSJSup, 80; Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 1:21739; and D. A. Machiela and A. B. Perrin, Tobit and
the Genesis Apocryphon: Toward a Family Portrait, JBL 133 (2014), pp. 11132. Four other studies have touched
on aspects of Tobits context at Qumran. Wacholders sweeping systematization of Aramaic epigraphic and literary
materials from across the ancient Near East, in the Hebrew Bible, and among the Qumran collection roughed out a
space for Tobit in this literature. However, the scope of his study allowed only for passing reference to Tobits
inclusion in the roster of Aramaic traditions (The Ancient JudaeoAramaic Literature, 260). Frolichs study
advertised an integrated analysis of Tobit and the Qumran finds, yet her paper is essentially an overview of the
narrative of the book of Tobit, with a few open observations left to the very end of the essay (Ida Frohlich, Tobit
against the Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellr (eds.), The Book of Tobit: Text,
Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Ppa, Hungary,
2021 May, 2004 [JSJSup, 98; Leiden: Brill, 2005], pp. 5570). Dimants study delivered some promising results on
the question of Tobit at Qumran; although, given the nature of the topic, her findings pertained mostly to a cross-
section of Hebrew sectarian literature and rabbinic halakhah (Devorah Dimant, The Book of Tobit and the Qumran
Halakhah, in D. Dimant and R. G. Kratz (eds.), The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran [FAT, 2.35;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck], pp. 12143). Dvid took a different tact by considering the ideological perspective on
death, burial, and corpse impurity in the book of Tobit in light of some Qumran documents and even the cemetery
configurations in the vicinity of the Qumran settlement (Nora Dvid, Burial in the Book of Tobit and in Qumran,
in A. Lange et al. (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient
Texts, Languages, and Cultures [VTSup, 140; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2011], 2:489500).

3
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

book of Tobit. With this analogy in mind, this article charts a course through the book of Tobit

and picks up on a number of theological and literary qualities it shares with pairs or clusters of

other Aramaic texts of various genres now available from the Qumran collection. Some of the

features described below are not necessarily distinctive to Aramaic literature of this period (e.g.,

endogamous marriage) However, it will be demonstrated that it is the strong concentration, early

attestation, repeated representation of such literary-theological emphases in the Aramaic

literature that is significant. Tobit may be viewed as an important representative of the Aramaic

heritage of ancient Judaism, since in it we find the confluence of several key components of the

thought world of the broader Aramaic collection. Additionally, the observations proffered below

may be taken as ancillary argumentation for Tobits original composition in Aramaic, since its

author will be seen to deal in a common currency of ideas that echo throughout the Aramaic

Dead Sea Scrolls.

2 Blending Autobiographical Discourse with Scriptural Idiom

Perhaps the most recognizable similarity between Tobit and a number of Aramaic texts is the use

of first-person narration. The propensity for Aramaic literature found at Qumran and elsewhere

to have characters tell their tales in their own voices has been documented in various writings.5

5
See, for example, the following: James E. Miller, The Redaction of Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon,
JSP 8 (1991), pp. 5361; George W. E. Nickelsburg, Patriarchs Who Worry About Their Wives: A Haggadic
Tendency in the Genesis Apocryphon, in M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon (eds.), Biblical Perspectives: Early Use
and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the First International Symposium
of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 1214 May 1996 (STDJ, 28;
Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 13758; Stephen A. Reed, The Use of the First Person in the Genesis Apocryphon, in E.
M. Meyers and P. V. M. Flesher (eds.), Aramaic in Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from the
2004 National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Seminar at Duke University (Duke Judaic Studies, 3;
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010), pp. 193215; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Pseudepigraphy and First Person
Discourse in the Dead Sea Documents: From the Aramaic Texts to Writings of the Yahad, in A. D. Roitman, L. H.
Schiffman, and S. Tzoref (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International
Conference held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 68, 2008) (STDJ, 93; Leiden: Brill, 2011), pp. 295326;
and Andrew B. Perrin, Capturing the Voices of Pseudepigraphic Personae: On the Form and Function of Incipits in
the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, DSD 20 (2013), pp. 9812.

4
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

Tobit, of course, is not solely presented from this vantage point, as its plot development requires

a textured first/third-person narration. As Nowell demonstrated in her sophisticated treatment of

Tobits discourse strategies, the book mingles first and third-person perspectives as required by

shifts in narrative location and its alternating focus on different characters.6 Despite the

first/third-person blend of the larger composition, Tob. 1:33:6 contains the core of Tobits own

story reported autobiographically. It is this section of the work that corresponds closely to the

preferred medium of several other writers of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls.

One of the clearest formal similarities between the Aramaic texts and Tobit in this regard

is the way in which incipits or superscriptions set the tone and context of ensuing first-person

narratives. While the outset of the book of Tobit is lost in the fragmentary Qumran finds, given

their general proximity in content and detail to the longer version of Tobit, known principally

from codex Sinaiticus, this later manuscript plausibly reflects the basic shape of its underlying

Semitic language Vorlage.

Tob. 1:12

The book of the words of Tobith son of Tobiel son of Hananiel son of Adouel son of
Gabael son of Raphael son of Ragouel of the descendants of Asiel, of the tribe of
Nephthaleim, who in the days of Enemessaros, the King of the Assyrians, was taken into
captivity from Thisbe which is to the right of Kydios Nephthaleim in Upper Galilee, above
Asser to the west, left of Phogor.7

6
Irene Nowell, The Narrator in the Book of Tobit, SBL Seminar Papers, 1988 (SBLSP, 27; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 2738. Such shifts also occur in GenAp, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Ahiqar.
7
All translations of Septuagint Tobit derive from Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright III (eds.), A
New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). In this study I will utilize the

5
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

Nowell observed that [t]he book opens, as many biblical narratives do, with a title (1:12)

which answers the basic questions necessary for the understanding of the story: who, when, what

and where. The title presents the genealogy of the principal character, the geographical location

of his original home, his political situation as an exile, and an indication of the initial time period

of the story.8 Elsewhere in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, however, similar introductory

formulae served to secure the pseudepigraphic voices of characters drawn from the Hebrew

Scriptures or to introduce purported writings within narratives. In the fragmentary materials

available, incipits similar to that of the book of Tobit are found in six writings, including:

Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen V 29; hereafter, GenAp), Visions of Amram (4QVisAmrama 1a,

b, c 14; 4QVisAmramc 1a i 14; 4QVisAmramd 1 12; hereafter, VisAmram), the Enochic Book

of Watchers (4QEnc 1 vi 910 [1 En. 14:1]), Book of Giants (4QEnGiantsa 8 35), Words of

Michael (4QWordsMich 1 1), and Prayer of Nabonidus (4QPrNab 1, 2a, 2b, 3 12). Aramaic

Ahiqar from Elephantine could also be added to this list.9 Of these, the incipits of Tobit and

VisAmram bear the closest formal resemblance. The latter commences in 4QVisAmrama as

follows, with reconstructed text drawn from the aforementioned overlaps.10

][
1

] [
2

transcriptions of the Qumran Tobit materials from Fitzmyers edition in DJD XIX. All other primary language texts
for the book of Tobit are from Stuart Weeks, Simon Gathercole, and Loren Stuckenbruck, The Book of Tobit: Texts
from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions (FoSub, 3; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004).
8
Nowell, The Narrator in the Book of Tobit, p. 35.
9
For a global study on this literary convention in the Aramaic texts from the Judaean Desert, see Perrin,
Capturing the Voices of Pseudepigraphic Personae. For comment on this feature in individual texts, see Henryk
Drawnel, The Initial Narrative of the Visions of Amram and its Literary Characteristics, RevQ 24 (2010), pp. 517
54; and Richard C. Steiner, The Heading of the Book of the Words of Noah on a Fragment of the Genesis
Apocryphon: New Light on a Lost Work, DSD 2 (1995), pp. 6671.
10
Transcription from . Puech, Qumran Grotte 4.XXII: Textes aramens, premire partie: 4Q529549
(DJD, XXXI; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), p. 292. English translations for the Aramaic texts throughout are my own.

6
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

] [ 3

[ []
][]
[
4

1 A copy of The Writing of the Words of the Vision(s) of Amram, son of[ Qahat, son of
Levi. All that]
2 he told his sons and that he instructed them on [the day of his death in the one hundred]
3 and thirty sixth [year], the year of[ his death, in the one hundred]
4 and fifty second [year] of the e[xile of I]s[ra]el to E[gyp]t

One problem persists in this proposed item of resemblance: since Tobit does not pre-exist in the

Hebrew Scriptures, his first-person voice is not technically pseudepigraphic. That is, unlike the

writers of Aramaic Levi Document (hereafter, ALD), VisAmram, or GenAp, for example, who

updated and enhanced scriptural character portraits, the author of Tobit begun with a blank

canvas. Or, at least, a nearly blank canvas.

The book of Tobit is steeped in scriptural metaphor and message. The collaborative effect

of this is that its story is a strategically recontextualized telling of aspects of Israels scriptural

heritage. At the level of characterization, it could be argued that the main contours of the person

of Tobit are, in essence, an embodiment of traditional Israelite theology. Tobit endorses

Deuteronomic retribution and corporate responsibility for sin and exile (Tob. 3:25); bitterly

weeps at his personal plight in a Job-like manner (Tob. 3:6); appeals to and demonstrates his

commitment to Mosaic law and festal ordinances (Tob. 1:8); endorses and models endogamous

marriage (Tob. 1:9); upholds Jewish dietary laws (Tob. 1:1011); and even recalls scripture

when poignant (Tob. 2:6). In fact, Tobits main contravention of Pentateuchal legislation

contracting corpse impurity by burying the deadmay be defended by his adherence to the

established practice of respectful burial of ones kin in the book of Genesis (Tob. 1:1719; 2:3

7
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

4, 7).11 Further examples of Tobits characterization in light of scriptural principles could be

deduced elsewhere in the third-person narrative, but this preliminary list suffices to make the

point: much like the book that bears his name, Tobits character is a composite crafting and

embodiment of scriptural ideals.

This characterization informed by scripture is enhanced further by recognizing how much

of the (mis)adventures of the tandem plots of the book of Tobit are cast in the mold of patriarchal

episodes from Genesis. This phenomenon has been extensively studied, so I here note only the

more documented parallels. Paramount among these is the modelling of the arrival discourse in

Tob. 7:35 on Gen. 29:46, as described by Nowell, and the patterning of Tobiass journey from

Nineveh to Ecbatana on Gen. 22, as documented by Novick.12 In all of this, Chesters estimation

that the use of Scripture in Tobit is multi-layered and multi-faceted is well-founded.13

The above insights on the uses of scripture in Tobit are essential to understanding the

function and veracity of Tobits first-person voice. In a comparative study on discourse

perspectives in the Qumran Aramaic and sectarian literature, Stuckenbruck perceived that, while

Tobit is not a pseudepigraphon, its author was certainly aware of this communicative idiom.14

The use of an incipit which hews closely to those elsewhere in the Qumran Aramaic texts

confirms this finding. Alternatively, Davies succinctly stated, [t]he autobiographical voice is

11
For enactments of this practice in patriarchal narratives, see Gen. 23:320; 25:9; 35:29; 47:3031; 49:29
50:14; and 50:2426. For discussion on this point, see Israel Abrahams, Tobit and Genesis, JQR (1893), pp. 348
50, and the more recent treatment by Jnos Bolyki, Burial as an Ethical Task in the Book of Tobit, in the Bible and
in the Greek Tragedies, in G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellr (eds.), The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology:
Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Ppa, Hungary, 2021 May, 2004
(JSJSup, 98; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 89101.
12
Irene Nowell, The Book of Tobit: An Ancestral Story, in J. Corley and V. Skemp (eds.), Intertextual
Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (CBQMS, 38; Washington, DC:
Catholic Biblical Association, 2005), pp. 313; and Tzvi Novick, Biblicized Narrative: On Tobit and Genesis 22,
JBL 126 (2007), pp. 75564.
13
Andrew Chester, Citing the Old Testament, in D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), It is
Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press, 1988), pp. 14169, here p. 156.
14
Stuckenbruck, Pseudepigraphy and First Person Discourse, p. 302.

8
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

definitely a scriptural one.15 On account of the pervasive influence of scripture on plot and

characterization, the author of Tobit strategically and subtly merged scriptural material and

pseudepigraphal narration styles in a new work of Aramaic historical-fiction. While Tobit is not

a character from the patriarchal past, he embodies scriptural ideals and his life and times are

dotted with experiences that unfold along the familiar lines of some memorable scriptural stories.

This layering and re-presentation of scripture, puts forth Tobit as a patriarch-like figure from a

more recent time. This reifies the foundation of authoritative scripture for the contemporary

audience and subtly links their world with ancestral tradition. Tobit provides a link to the

formative days of old in Israelite history, a link that is brought into clearer focus still by

considering the intermingling of familial genealogies and the transmission of knowledge.

3 Ancestral Instruction on Israelite Religion

Tobits autobiography opens with a self-drawn character sketch in Tob. 1:39, which highlights

his piety, charity, and fidelity to Jerusalem from his youth. Tobit describes how his commitment

to the Jerusalem cult simultaneously fulfilled religious obligation and provided for the poor.

Following this notation, Tob. 1:8 contains a peculiar statement that Tobits knowledge of proper

festal observance derived from Mosaic law, which was disclosed to him through his fraternal

(great) grandmother, Deborah (Tob. 1:8b).16 Here again we must rely on a later Greek witness as

15
Philip R. Davies, Introduction: Autobiography as Exegesis, in P. R. Davies (ed.), First Person: Essays
in Biblical Autobiography (Sheffield: Academic Press, 2002), pp. 1124, here p. 11.
16
There is some ambiguity among the manuscripts regarding the exact relation of Deborah to Tobit. The
problem hinges on whether Hananiel was Tobits father or grandfather. Codex Sinaiticus mentions that Hananiel
was Tobits in Tob. 1:8. The incipit of the work, however, specifies that Hananiel was in fact his grandfather
(Tob. 1:1). Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus depart from this genealogical association in Tob 1:8., simply stating
that Deborah was Tobits grandmother, without any mention of Hananiel. This tension within and among the
witnesses has been explained in various ways. Zimmerman (Frank Zimmerman, The Book of Tobit [Jewish
Apocryphal Literature; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958], pp. 4849) and Littman (Robert J. Littman, Tobit:
The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus [SCS, 9; Leiden: Brill, 2008], p. 53) suggested that the inclusion of Hananiel
in codex Sinaiticus is erroneous, arising out of some confusion over the reference to Hannah in Tob. 1:9. Were this
the case, the shorter text versions would contain the earlier reading. While this explanation is creative, the simplest

9
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

a guide to understanding the lost Aramaic original. In codex Sinaiticus, this passage reads as

follows, with underlined and bolded text of relevance to the ensuing discussion:

Tob. 1:8b

I brought and gave these things to them in the third year, and we would eat them
according to the decree that had been decreed concerning them in the law of Moyses
and according to the commands which Debbora, the mother of Hananiel our father, had
commanded, for my father had left me an orphan and died.

This detail takes on new significance in light of the transmission of ancestral lore and cultic

knowledge in some priestly-patriarchal texts in the Aramaic texts, not least Testament of Qahat

(hereafter, T. Qahat) and ALD. The first of these portrays the patriarch Qahat handing down

booklore to his children and adjuring them to keep a tight hold on their inheritance, inclusive of

this special knowledge. The model of knowledge acquisition and instruction through approved

genealogical channels is evident in 4QTQahat 1 ii 913.17 I present the text here with minimal

reconstructions retained from Puechs more extensive proposals in the official edition.18

[
9

[ [] {}>< {} 11
[11

solution is that the shorter text has resolved an exegetical issue by removing the seemingly problematic naming of
Hananiel in Tob. 1:8. Furthermore, as Fitzmyer noted, the problem may be more perceived than actual, since the
semantic range of the word includes ancestor (Tobit, p. 111). The same semantic range is afforded to the
Aramaic term , which presumably lies behind the Greek translation (cf. Ezra 4:15; 5:12; Dan. 2:23; 5:2; 11, 13,
18). For the present purposes it is essential only to recognize that Tobits instruction was handed down by a close
relative, whom was his senior.
17
See also 4QTQahat 1 i 413.
18
DJD XXXI, 269.

10
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

[ 12
va]cat >< >< 13
9 And now, to you Amram, my son, I comma[nd
10 and your [s]ons and their sons I command[
11 and they gave to Levi, my father, and Levi, my father g[ave] to me[
12 all the writings as a testimony that you should be warned by them[
13 great merit in them for you when you carry them about with you. va[cat

While Qahat does not specify the topics disclosedat least not in the available textgiven the

priestly tone of the work, it is conceivable that the inheritance of knowledge passed down from

Levi to Qahat to Amram included cultic knowledge of some description. The terminology of

commanding ( )subsequent generations in lines 910 is akin to what is found in the

underlined text in Tob. 1:8a above. This pair of portrayals finds further analogies in a similar,

more complete scene in ALD.

The detailed instruction Isaac provides for his grandson Levi concerning the law of the

priesthood is a core component of ALD. This category of instruction is comprised of both proper

moral conduct and correct knowledge of cultic/sacerdotal processes, elements, vestments, and

ablutions.19 Isaacs disclosure to Levi concludes with the following words:

ALD 50-51 (Athos E 18.2)20

19
See also Jub. 21; 32 and T. Levi 9.
20
Like the book of Tobit, ALD has a complex transmission history, involving multiple languages and,
perhaps, variant editions. For a discussion of some of the differences between the Qumran and Cairo Genizah texts,
see Stig Norin, The Aramaic LeviComparing the Qumran Fragments with the Genizah Text, SJOT 27 (2013),
pp. 11830. In this study, when the Aramaic text of ALD is lacking in the manuscript evidence I will look to the
Greek translation from the Mount Athos Koutloumousiou monastery. All ALD texts and translations are from
Henryk Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document (JSJSup, 86;
Leiden: Brill, 2004).

11
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

For thus father Abraham commanded me to do and to command my sons. And now, my
son, I rejoice that you have been chosen for the holy priesthood and to offer sacrifice to the
Lord most high, as it is fitting to do, according to what has been decreed.21

At least two components of this text warrant comment in light of Tob. 1:8. First, both Levi and

Tobit acquire knowledge of religious duty from a grandparent. Of course, Tobit is not a priest, so

the perspective on the topic differs. Whereas Levi learned the proper conduct of the sacerdotal

officiant, Tobit was instructed in the essentials of observance as a faithful supplicant. The mode

of transmission is framed in analogous language in both texts, at least as far as can be determined

from the Greek. Note the paired emphatic usage of the noun command () and the verb

to command (). The author, then, seems to have cleverly inverted the theme: like Qahat

or Levi who learned correct sacrificial processes from their grandparents, so Tobit was instructed

in the finer points of bringing appropriate offerings by his (great) grandparent. The two motifs

complement one another and underscore a chain of tradition.

Second, both works enhance the authority of the received knowledge by ascribing it to a

more ancient body of knowledge associated with a founding figure in close proximity to the

divine. For the book of Tobit, the figure is Moses and the source Mosaic Law. For ALD, the

source is simply what has been decreed, which pertains to the booklore that stretches all the way

back to Noah, as specified in ALD 57. Here again verbal parallels persist. Whereas Tobit speaks

of bringing and partaking of offerings according to the decree that had been decreed (

), ALD references conducting sacrifices according to what has

been decreed ( ). The correspondences between ALD and Tobit are not

enough to conclude any degree of intertextuality. The most plausible explanation is that the

author of Tobit is delving into a deeper pool of Jewish Aramaic tradition and is reframing

21
I have revised this last phrase of Drawnels translation to allow for a more literal comparison with Tobit.

12
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

priestly-patriarchal themes in a context more recent and relatable to his audience in the Second

Temple period.

4 Maintaining Family Ties through Endogamous Marriages

At the outset of a recent study on marriage in the book of Tobit, Hieke adopted a broad definition

of endogamous marriage, but concluded that, [l]ineage endogamy is most relevant for the

biblical world as a restriction on marriage which urges members of a certain lineage to marry

only a member of the same lineage or descent.22 Depending on the circumstances and

demographics of both author and audience, endorsements of endogamy could conceivably serve

a number of ends. As noted by Collins, [t]he primary purposes of endogamy are to maintain

close ties within the kinship group and to ensure that inheritances do not pass outside the tribe.23

At a sociological level, this is no doubt the case. However, the message of endogamy also has a

rhetorical force. Elevating the ideal of unions within a family or tribe is as much a halakhic issue

as it is a symbol for identity maintenance that emphasizes drawing boundaries between insiders

and outsiders. Since Tobits earliest readership was presumably diversethe book seems to have

appealed to readers in Diaspora contexts as well as to the conservative, and in some cases likely

celibate members, of the Qumran movementthe issue of the function of endogamy in the book

of Tobit must also be considered from a literary-theological perspective. As such, my focus falls

on this component of the theme of endogamy in Tobit and the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls,

22
Thomas Hieke, Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, Genesis, and Ezra-Nehemiah, in G. G. Xeravits and J.
Zsengellr (eds.), The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the
Deuterocanonical Books, Ppa, Hungary, 2021 May, 2004 (JSJSup, 98; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 10320, here p.
105.
23
John J. Collins, The Judaism of the Book of Tobit, in G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellr (eds.), The Book
of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books,
Ppa, Hungary, 2021 May, 2004 (JSJSup, 98; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 2340, here p. 31.

13
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

without making any immediate attempt to link this message to a particular socio-historical

setting of a given Jewish readership in the ancient world.

The rhetoric of (dis)approved marriage practice is worked out in various ways within and

beyond the Hebrew Bible.24 Perspectives on marriage in the book of Tobit and in some of the

Qumran Aramaic texts have been highlighted at intervals.25 However, there remains a need for a

focused contextualization of the former within the latter. To draw such comparisons, it will be

helpful to briefly survey the representations of endogamy in the Aramaic Dead Sea texts. There

are at least four Aramaic compositions that touch on this topic: ALD, T. Qahat, VisAmram, and

GenAp.

According to ALDs retelling of Gen. 34, had Levi not acted out with violence against the

Shechemites, a foreign branch could have been grafted into the family tree (ALD 1c3a; 78).

More practical models for endogamy are found in the lives of both Levi, who states that his wife

Melcha was from Abrahams line, and Amram, who is reported to have wed Jochebed, his own

aunt (ALD 62; 75). These practices reflect the ancestral custom originally passed down to Levi

24
For a comprehensive treatment of this trajectory, see Christine Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish
Identity: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), and
now the recent collections of essays in Christian Frevel (ed.), Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity
in the Second Temple Period (LHB/OTS, 547; London: T & T Clark, 2011), and Angelo Passaro (ed.), Family and
Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCCLY 2012/2013; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013).
25
For focused treatments of marriage in the book of Tobit, see Moore, Tobit, pp. 22433; Hieke,
Endogamy in the Book of Tobit; and Geoffrey David Miller, Marriage in the Book of Tobit (DCLS, 10; Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2011). Langes two-part study is one of the more recent explorations of marriage in a cross-
section of literature from the Hebrew Bible to the Qumran collection (Armin Lange, Your Daughters Do Not Give
to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 910 and in the
Pre-Maccabean Dead Sea Scrolls, BN 137 [2008], pp. 1739; idem, Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons
and Their Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 910 and in the Pre-Maccabean
Dead Sea Scrolls, Teil 2, BN 139 [2008], pp. 7998). There has been some discussion of how marriage figures into
the broader understanding of family in the book of Tobit. On this, see Will Soll, The Book of Tobit as a Window on
the Hellenistic Jewish Family, in L. M. Luker (ed.), Passion, Vitality, and Foment: The Dynamics of Second
Temple Judaism (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2001), pp. 24275; Pekka Pitkanen, Family Life and
Ethnicity in Early Israel and in Tobit, in M. Bredin (ed.), Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary
Approach (LSTS, 55; London: T & T Clark, 2006), pp. 10417; and Devorah Dimant, The Family of Tobit, in K.
Daniel Dobos and M. Kszeghy (eds.), With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida
Frlich (Sheffield: Academic Press, 2009), pp. 15762.

14
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

from his grandfather Isaac, who admonished the young priest in ALD 1617 (Bodleian b 1421)

with the following words:

{}

First of all, beware, my son, of every fornication and impurity and of every harlotry. And
you, take for yourself a wife from my family so that you may not defile your seed with
harlots, because you are a holy seed. And holy is your seed like the Holy One, for a holy
priest you are called for all the seed of Abraham

This ideal was so instilled in Levi that, upon his familys descent into Egypt, he saw to it

personally that the integrity of his immediate relations was protected. Aramaic Levi Document 73

contains Levis testimony on the matter: And for my sons I to[ok wives] from the daughters of

my brothers at the moment corresponding to their ages, and sons w[ere b]orn to them ( [

[]
( )] Cambridge d 34).

The necessity of endogamous marriage is also hinted at in 4QTQahat 1 i 89. In this

fragmentary episode, Qahat insists that his children remain pure from intermingling ( [

)]. While this command is less explicit than that in ALD, Harrington is no doubt correct

that this phrasing is probably an allusion to intermarriage.26

26
Hannah Harrington, Intermarriage in Qumran Texts: The Legacy of Ezra-Nehemiah, in Christian Frevel
(ed.), Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period (LHB/OTS, 547; London:
T & T Clark, 2011), pp. 25179. For a similar conclusion, see Henryk Drawnel, The Literary Form and Didactic
Content of the Admonitions (Testament) of Qahat, in F. Garca Martnez, A. Steudel, and E. Tigchelaar (eds.),
From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Melanges qumraniens en hommage a Emile Puech (STDJ, 61; Leiden: Brill, 2006),
pp. 5573.

15
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

Advocacy for endogamy spikes again in VisAmram. The opening scene of the work

centres on a marriage celebration between Amrams daughter, Miriam, and her uncle, Uzziel.27

Elsewhere in the text Amram, like his grandfather Levi, was careful to maintain the purity of his

own endogamous marriage. While the regional conflict between Canaan and Egypt kept Amram

from seeing his wife for a period of time, Amram asserts, [But] I did [not] take [for myself]

ano[ther] wife (
[ ] ) (4QVisAmramb 1 8).28 This triad of Aramaic
[]

texts, then, contains a focused rhetoric of endogamous marriage, which was given a distinct

priestly application. This may bespeak something of the social location and identities of the

scribes responsible for this Aramaic priestly literature; however, knowledge of this context is, for

the moment, beyond grasp.29

Genesis Apocryphon indicates that endorsements of endogamy extended beyond Aramaic

literature with priestly interests. The concern for marital purity manifests itself in narrative

episodes, first-person discourses, and patriarchal examples. In a dramatic confrontation, Lamech

suspects that the miraculous sight of the newborn Noah may be the result of an unnatural

conception by a fallen watcher and his wife, Batenosh. Batenosh tearfully assures him of her

fidelity. Unconvinced, Lamech flees to his father, Methuselah, for advice, who in turn seeks out

certainty on the matter from his father, Enoch (1QapGen II 126; V 1027). In the background

of this accusation, of course, is the ultimate illicit union of heaven and earth, as reported most

fully in the Enochic Book of Watchers (1 En. 611). In a later episode in GenAp, Abram finds

27
This episode in relatively complete, thanks to overlaps from 4QVisAmrama ac 57; 4QVisAmramc 1a i
48; and 4QVisAmramd 1 34.
28
See also 4QVisAmrame 12 7.
29
For speculation on the significance of endogamy for potential priestly social settings behind VisAmram,
see Robert R. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram (4Q543547) (Studies in Biblical Literature, 135;
New York: Peter Lang, 2010), pp. 4969; and Liora Goldman, The Burial of the Fathers in the Visions of Amram
from Qumran, in D. Dimant and R. G. Kratz (eds.), Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: The Biblical
Patriarchs in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (BZAW, 439; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 2013), pp. 231-49.

16
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

himself in a different sort of situation, which could jeopardize the purity of his marriage. After

disguising the true nature of his relationship with Sarah, she was absconded into Pharaohs

house, but the Egyptian ruler was unable to have sex with the patriarchs wife due to a divinely

dispatched pestilential spirit. Noah, however, takes the firmest stance on endogamy in GenAp.

1QapGen VI 79 portrays Noah as practicing this form of union as well as ensuring his progeny

did likewise. The pertinent text from these lines is as follows:

[]




7

]
[ 8

]
[ 9

7 I went and took Emzera his daughter as my wife. She conceived by way of me and
gave birth to th[r]ee sons,
8 [and daughters.] Then I took wives for my sons from among the daughters of my
brothers, and my daughters I gave to the sons of my brothers, according to the custom of
the eternal statute
9 [that] the [Lo]rd of Eternity [gave] to humanity.30

This frame of reference in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls allows for a fresh perspective on

Tobits presentation of endogamy. Hieke astutely observed that this ideal is pervasive in the

book and is advanced by nearly the whole cast of characters. He writes,

All relevant literary figures have to do with endogamy: In 1:9 Tobit introduces himself as a
man who married a woman from our ancestral kindred. Sarah, put side by side with
Tobit in their sad prayers to the deity, stresses in 3:15 her duty of marrying within her own
clan and tribe. In 4:1213 Tobit commands his son Tobias to marry an Israelite woman of
his own tribe. The helpful angel Raphael lays emphasis on the fact that Tobias is the ideal
husband for Sarah, because he is next of kin to her (6:1213). Finally, in 7:911 Tobias

30
Texts and translations of GenAp are from Daniel A. Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A
New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 1317 (STDJ, 79; Leiden: Brill,
2009), p. 44.

17
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

wants to marry his kinswoman (literally, sister), and Raguel underscores the matter of
kinship.31

As in the four Aramaic texts reviewed above, the book of Tobit endorses endogamous marriage

in principle, paternal instruction, and practice. There are three specific areas of correlation

between Tobit and this network of Aramaic texts that deserve comment. First, they share the

understanding that the halakhah governing endogamous marriages derives from an authoritative,

divinely revealed source. This was made evident in 1QapGen VI 8, where Noah specified that

the arrangement of his childrens marriages was according to the custom of the eternal statute

() . Three times in Tob. 7:1113 Ragouel references the book of Moses (

) as governing the union of Tobias and Sarah.32 As noted by Cohen, the Pentateuch

does not contain a clear halakhic ruling against unions with Gentiles.33 In a manner not unlike

the author of the book of Ezra who claimed the oppositethat divorces of exogamous marriages

were according to the law (( )Ezra 10:3)the author of Tobit is here participating in a

Mosaic discourse of halakhic innovation, revision, and extension for the purposes of inclusion

and exclusion.34 The divine involvement in Tobias and Sarahs marriage is enhanced further still

by indications that it was literally a match made in heaven, as indicated by Tob. 6:18 and 7:11.35

31
Hieke, Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, 105, italics in original.
32
A few scattered words and phrases of this section were recovered among the Qumran Aramaic texts;
however, they do not enhance our view of this aspect of the passage. See 4QpapToba 15 (Tob. 7:13) and 4QTobd 1
(Tob. 7:11).
33
Shaye Cohen, From the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of Intermarriage, HAR 7 (1983), pp. 23
39. See also Christine Hayes, Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources, HTR 92 (1999), pp. 336.
34
On this phenomenon, see Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in
Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup, 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003).
35
Frolich, Tobit against the Background, 62. Ragouel and Sarahs ongoing commitment to endogamy is
especially clear in codex Sinaiticus at Tob. 7:11, which specifies that Sarahs seven deceased husbands were of our
kinsmen ( ). Since Tobias is of no immediate relation to these seven men, Littmans comment that this
passage speaks of Levirate marriage is off the mark (Tobit, 121). Fitzmyer is correct that, as in Tob. 1:3,
does not strictly denote fraternal relationships but a familial network (Tobit, 231).

18
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

Second, there are parallel portrayals of paternal instruction or oversight of proper marital

practices. In Tob. 4:12 in codex Vaticanus Tobits wisdom discourse includes the following

instruction:36

Beware, my child, of all immorality. And first of all take a wife from among the
descendants of your ancestors, and do not take a foreign woman, who is not of the tribe of
your father, for we are the children of the prophets. Remember, my child, Noe, Abraam,
Isaak, Iakob, our fathers from of old. These all took wives from among their kindred, and
they were blessed in their children, and their descendants will inherit the land.

The form and phrasing of this instruction finds especially close echoes in ALD 1617, cited

above. Both passages are framed with an introductory cautionary statement from father to son;

warn against defilement brought about by sexual promiscuity ( or ); and instruct to

take a wife from within the family, with particular reference to the ancestral seed ( or

). While Tobit does not go so far as to arrange Tobiass marriage, as was the case with

Levi in ALD or Noah in GenAp, the model of patriarchal instruction on the topic of endogamy in

the book of Tobit is a well-worn expression in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls.

Third, there is a close awareness of the patriarchal models of endogamy, even in traditions

beyond the book of Genesis. Tobit 4:12 exhibits an intriguing recourse to an endogamous norm

said to have been in effect from the days of Israels forefathers. That Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

36
The longer Greek text of codex Sinaiticus is corrupt here and proceeds directly from Tob. 4:6b to 4:19b
(note, however, the more complete version in the Greek manuscript 319). For a proposed reconstruction of this
section, see Weeks, Restoring Greek Tobit, 1115. Material from this lost section is modestly extant at Qumran in
both Aramaic (4QpapToba 10 [Tob. 4:7]) and Hebrew (4QTob e [Tob. 4:39]).

19
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

practiced endogamous marriage can be deduced from Genesis.37 The same, however, cannot be

said of Noah. The name and genealogical associations of this antediluvian ancestors spouse are

ambiguous.38 A parallel reading of Jub. 4:33 and 1QapGen VI 7, however, indicates than an

early tradition existed likely first in the Aramaic language if Jubilees here drew upon

GenApwhich specified the name of Noahs wife as Emzera.39

Many of the points discussed thus far have concerned strategies for linking the past and

present in the book of Tobit and the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls. As will be shown immediately,

there are also some shared elements in their views of the future.

5 An Eschatological Outlook Inclusive of a New Jerusalem

There is a long history of debate over the compositional growth of the book of Tobit, particularly

concerning the eschatologically charged material in chapters 13 and 14. The Qumran finds

offered up fragments of this section in Aramaic and Hebrew, effectively putting to rest

redactional theories of an original form of the book that ran only twelve chapters. 40 It is true that

the narrative of Tobit is intelligible without Tobits final prayer, exhortation, and prophecy.

However, these concluding sections contain material essential to the original message and

enduring outlook of the work. There is potentially much to discuss in Tob. 1314 in light of

ancient Jewish eschatological outlooks. However, one aspect of this section that is brought into

sharper relief through comparison with the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls is the idea of the re-

founding of the temple in a new Jerusalem. These notions are especially evident in Tob. 13:16

37
Gen. 20:12; 24:4, 15, 67; 28:12, 67; 29:2830.
38
Gen. 5:32; 7:7.
39
As Fitzmyer noted, Jubilees clarified that Emzera was Noahs cousin on his fathers side (Joseph A.
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary [3rd rev. ed.; BibOr, 18/B; Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2004], 147).
40
See 4QpapToba 17 ii (Tob. 13:612); 18 (Tob. 13:1214:3); 19 (Tob. 14:7); 4QTobc 1 (Tob. 14:26); 2
(Tob. 14:10); 4QTobd 2 (Tob. 14:10); 4QTobe 6 (Tob. 12:2013:4); 7 i (Tob. 13:1314); 7 ii (Tob. 13:1814:2); and
4QSchyenTob (Tob. 14:35).

20
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

18. This passage is known most completely in codex Sinaiticus, which closely corresponds to

portions preserved in 4QpapToba 18 511.41 I present both texts and corresponding translations

here for comparison.

Tob. 13:1618 (Sinaiticus)

For Ierousalem will be built as a city, as his house for all the ages. Happy shall I be if a
remnant of my seed should be present to see your glory and to acknowledge the king of
heaven. And the gates of Ierousalem will be built with lapis lazuli and emerald, and all
your walls with precious stone. The towers of Ierousalem will be built with gold, and their
battlements with pure gold. The streets of Ierousalem will be paved with ruby and stone of
Souphir. And the gates of Ierousalem will say hymns of joy, and all her houses will say
Hallelouia! Blessed be the God of Israel! And the blessed will bless his holy name
forever and ever.

Tob. 13:1618 (4QpapToba 18 511)

[42] [ 5

] [
[ 6

[ ]
[ 7

] [ [ 8

[ ] [ 9

[
][]
[ 11

41
4QTobe 7 ii 13 also contain a few characters and words from the end of Tob. 13:18, which I will not
include here.
42
The tetrapuncta is used to represent the divine epithet elsewhere in the manuscript, at 4QpapToba
17 i 5; 18 15 (Tob. 12:22; 14:2). For a study of this scribal feature, see Daniel A. Machiela, Lord or God? Tobit and
the Tetragrammaton, CBQ 75 (2013), pp. 46372.

21
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

] ] [ [ 11

13:15
5 bless the LORD,] the Great King. 13:16 Fo[r
6 the [remnan]t of my seed to[ see
7 the gates of Jerusalem] will be built [with emerald and] sapphire
13:17
8 the towers of Jerusalem] will be built [of g]old and wo[od
13:18
9 ] and with stone of [
10 they [will] s[a]y, Hal[leluiah
11 blessed be forever ]and ever. For in you they will bless [his holy] n[ame forever and
ever.

To be sure, the tradition-historical trajectory of ideas on a new Jerusalem germinates in some

exilic strata of prophetic texts in the Hebrew Bible and comes into full bloom in early Jewish and

Christian literature. The more noteworthy texts contributing to the tradition include, Isa. 49:18;

54:1117; Ezek. 4048; Temple Scroll; and Rev. 3:21; 21:1521. Tobit might be plotted along

this evolutionary growth of the tradition. Even a cursory comparison of these materials reveals a

rich diversity and application of new Jerusalem motifs. What I wish to call attention to here are

those aspects of Tobits last discourse that comport with analogous ideas in the Aramaic New

Jerusalem (hereafter, NJ). These similarities come into clearest view upon consideration of the

the new Aramaic evidence for Tobit at Qumran.

Central to Tob. 13:1618 is an elaborate description of certain architectural features of

the eschatological Jerusalem. Some of this description is no doubt inspired Isaianic prophecies.43

However, in the realm of the Aramaic texts, NJ offers up some intriguing correspondences to the

book of Tobit.44 The table below compares the terms in which the authors of this set of writings

described the construction of this monumental city.

43
Moore, Tobit, p. 281; Fitzmyer, Tobit, pp. 31617.
44
Skemp argued that the similar imagery and terminology of the descriptions of Jerusalem in Tob. 13:16
17 and Rev. 21:1821 indicate that the later drew upon the former (Vincent Skemp, Avenues of Intertextuality
between Tobit and the New Testament, in J. Corley and V. Skemp (eds.), Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and

22
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

TABLE:
Comparison of Architectural and Infrastructural Depictions of the Eschatological Jerusalem

Book of Tobit New Jerusalem

City Gates Sinaiticus: lapis lazuli () 5QNJ 1 i 7: marble ( )and onyx
and emerald ()
()45
4QpapToba 18 7: [emerald] ([)]
and sapphire ()

Walls Sinaiticus: precious stone ( 5QNJ 1 i 6: white stone (( ) see

) also 4QNJa 1 ii 22)

Towers Sinaiticus: gold (), with 4QNJa 2 ii 15: electrum ()[,

battlements of pure gold (
sapphire (), chalcedony (),
)
and gold plated wood ()
a
4QpapTob 18 8: gold ( )]and
wood ()[

Streets Sinaiticus: ruby () and stone 5QNJ 1 i 6: white stone (( ) see

of sapphire ( ) also 4QNJa 1 ii 22)
4QpapToba 18 9: and with stone of
([ )

From the architectural details highlighted here it is apparent that both works envisage a city built

of costly materials and elaborately decorated with precious jewels. These broad correspondences

should not be overstated, however, since NJs description is much more extensive, including a

Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. [CBQMS, 38; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical
Association, 2005], pp. 4370). His study was compelled by a marginal reference to Tob. 13:17 alongside Rev 21:19
in the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. Skemp glossed over the wider evidence for new
Jerusalem portrayals in a litany of Second Temple Jewish compositions, not least the Aramaic NJ. For this reason,
his findings on literary dependence are overstated.
45
The context of this section is highly fragmentary. These elements are referenced between descriptions of
the paved streets of Jerusalem (5QNJ 1 i 6) and the city gates (4QNJ a 1 iii 1). Since the streets of Jerusalem are
described as paved with white stone, the marble and onyx must be among the materials for the city gates. On the
placement and reconstruction of these fragments, see Lorenzo DiTommaso, The Dead Sea New Jerusalem Text:
Contents and Contexts (TSAJ, 110; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 4345; and DJD XXXVII, pp. 11719.

23
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

detailed blueprint of the temple at the heart of the city,46 a feature which is mentioned but not

described in Tob. 14:5, as well as domestic residences within the city walls. New Jerusalems

blueprint of the perimeter of the locale also pays greater attention to the city gates, specifying

their placement and names after the twelve tribes of Israel.47 In at least one detail of their

descriptions, however, a remarkable parallel is detectable: according to the Qumran Aramaic

traditions, both texts specify that Jerusalems towers will be constructed of gold and wood

(4QpapToba 18 8; 4QNJa 2 ii 15).

The two works also dovetail with respect to the function of the city and its temple. Tobit

13:11 and 14:5 anticipate the humbling of the nations and the returning of exiles to the holy city.

These ideas also surface in NJ. DiTommaso compelling argued that 4QNJa 13 presents a list of

Israels traditional, turned eschatological, foes in the end time, who will be drawn to Jerusalem to

worship the God of Israel.48 No matter how on conceives of the reason for NJs massive urban

accommodation capacity, whether it is intended to accommodate permanent returnee residents or

throngs of eschatological pilgrims, it is clear that the city is meant to allow for volumes of

Israelite worshipers, which presumes the ingathering of the dispersed. These ideas first emerge in

46
The description of this building and its furnishings are equally elaborate, including a gate of sapphire
(( )2QNJ 3 2), walls of white stone (( ) 2QNJ 8 3), a bath of pure gold (( ) 11QNJ 10 i 2), and
an object adorned with stones ( )and gold (( )11QNJ 10 i 56).
47
For a concise treatment of this topic, see mile Puech, The Names of the Gates of the New Jerusalem
(4Q554), in S. M. Paul et al. (eds.), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor
of Emanuel Tov (VTSup, 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp.37992.
48
DiTommaso, The Dead Sea New Jerusalem Text, pp.17476. I disagree, however, with his insistence that
this fragment includes a schematized review of history. Rather, traditional understandings that this fragment
prophecies an eschatological war are more plausible (see Jean Carmignac, La future intervention de Dieu selon la
pense de Qumran, in M. Delcor (ed.), Qumrn: Sa pit, se thologie et son milieu [Paris-Gembloux: Duculot,
1978], pp. 21929; Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, p. 201; John J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead
Sea Scrolls [The Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls; London: Routledge, 1997], p. 260; Puech, DJD XXXVII, p. 94;
and Eibert Tigchelaar, The Character of the City and the Temple of the Aramaic New Jerusalem, in T. Nicklas, et
al. (eds.), Other Worlds and Their Relation to This World: Early Jewish and Ancient Christian Traditions [JSJSup,
143; Leiden: Brill, 2010], pp. 11731).

24
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

some nascent new Jerusalem traditions in the Hebrew Bible49 and are also attested in the

Aramaic Enoch literature.50 Taken together, then, Tobit, NJ, and to a lesser extent, Aramaic

Enoch, indicate a shared understanding that the eschatological Jerusalem, temple and all, will sit

at the epicenter of the world. The associations noted in Tobit and NJ represent some of the

earliest post-biblical developments of this brand of eschatology. In some regards, the two works

did so in a common direction, even sharing some descriptive details of gold-plated lookout

towers. As demonstrated in the next and final section, Tobits integration of apocalyptic motifs

was not limited to its eschatological vantage point.

6 A Muted Awareness of the Apocalyptic Dream-Vision Tradition

The final aspect of Tobits context in the Aramaic texts treated here concerns the ways in which

the author engaged the apocalyptic dream-vision tradition that is particularly well-represented in

the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls. Skemp and Portier-Young outlined the apocalyptic undertones of

the book of Tobit.51 One way to add detail to this outline is through the comparison of Tobit with

contemporary writings with apocalyptic inclinations. Nickelsburgs study moved in this direction

by comparing and contrasting aspects of Tobits and 1 Enochs angelology and eschatology.52 In

view of the now widened collection of Aramaic texts available, there are other combinations of

writings that could be fruitfully explored for similarities with the apocalyptic tradition.

49
Isa. 2:2; 60:5; Mic. 4:2; Zech. 8:22; Pss. 86:9; 97:8.
50
1 En. 90:2829; 93:1315.
51
Skemp, Avenues of Intertextuality, p. 50; Anathea Portier-Young, Eyes to the Blind: A Dialogue
between Tobit and Job, in J. Corley and V. Skemp (eds.), Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in
Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (CBQMS, 38; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 2005), pp.
1427; eadem, RomCom, Little Instruction Book, or Domestic Apocalypse? Rethinking Genre in Tobit and Early
Judaism (paper presented at the Seminar for Culture and Religion in Antiquity, University of Toronto, 29 October
2012).
52
Nickeslburg, Tobit and Enoch, pp. 5562.

25
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

Two-thirds, or twenty, of the thirty Aramaic compositions among the Qumran finds feature

or reference dream-vision revelation and/or their inspired interpretation.53 Scholars have

increasingly recognized that the dream-vision is formative to the development of the apocalypse

genre and apocalyptic outlook.54 While Tobit does not feature a dream-vision account in the

traditional sense, hints throughout the narrative indicate that the author was familiar with this

form and cleverly redeployed it. The Aramaic dream-vision tradition is too voluminous and

diverse to describe here in full. Therefore, my discussion will use the scene of Raphaels self-

disclosure from the denouement in Tobit 12 to highlight three thematic and generic analogies

between Tobit and Aramaic revelatory literature.

First, the initial reaction of Tobit and Tobias at the news of an angel in their midst is

reminiscent of the behaviour of dreamers caught up in or concluding divine revelations. At the

revelation of Raphaels identity, Tob. 12:16 in codex Sinaiticus reports the following: Then they

were both troubled, and they fell on their face, and they were afraid (

). 1 Enoch 14:13b14a contains a tight parallel to

this phrasing when Enoch fell into a state of shock within a dream-vision that swept him up to

the heavenly throne room. Nickelsburg and VanderKam render this text as Fear enveloped me,

and trembling seized me, and I was quaking and trembling, and I fell upon my face (

53
For an exploration of these, see Andrew B. Perrin, The Dynamics of Dream-Vision Revelation in the
Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls (JAJSup; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming).
54
Jean Carmignac, Description du phnomene de lApocalyptique dans lAncien Testament, in D.
Hellholm (ed.), Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International
Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 1217, 1979 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), pp. 16370;
Frances Flannery-Dailey, Dreamers, Scribes, and Priests: Jewish Dreams in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras
(JSJSup, 90; Leiden: Brill, 2004); eadem, Lessons on Early Jewish Apocalypticism and Mysticism from Dream
Literature, in A. D. DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism (SBLSymS,
11; Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 23147; and Bennie H. Reynolds III, Between Symbolism and Realism: The Use of
Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Language in Ancient Jewish Apocalypses, 33363 B.C.E. (JAJSup, 8; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011).

26
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

]).55 A number of other dreamers in the Aramaic collection express their emotional distress

caused by the sights and sounds of revelations. Upon stirring awake in 1QapGen XIX 18, Abram

remarks that he has had a foreboding dream, because of which I am afraid () . In a

dialogue with the oneirocritic Daniel, King Nebuchadnezzar confesses that he saw a dream that

frightened ( )and terrified ( )him (Dan. 4:5 [2]). After learning of the gloomy dream-

visions received by the giant brothers Hayha and Ohaya, their gargantuan companions were

(4QEnGiantsb 2 ii + 6 +7 i + 811 +12 [?] 20).56 To be sure, the frightful

frightened ()

response to dream-vision revelation is a common motif in ancient Near Eastern writings.57

However, the close terminological correspondence between Tob. 12:16 and 1 En. 14:13b14a,

coupled with the strong representation of dread inducing dream-visions in the Aramaic Dead Sea

Scrolls, suggests that the inclusion of this motif immediately after a this-worldly angelic

disclosure is not likely coincidental. Rather, it may suggest that the author of Tobit was toying

with and reframing an apocalyptic motif.

Second, Tobits retrospective documentation of narrative events is paralleled by dreamers

inscribing their revelations after their occurrence. Prior to his ascension, Raphael commands

Tobit to Write down all these things that have happened to you (

55
George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), p. 35. Modified Greek text from Matthew Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece
(PVTG, 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970). Nickelsburg pointed out that codex Panopolitanus has omitted the phrase upon my
face, which can be restored from the Ethiopic (George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book
of 1 Enoch, Chapters 136; 81108 [Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001], p. 258), hence my minor
reconstruction of the last phrase in the Greek text citation. See also Miliks reconstruction upon my face ()
in 4QEnc vi 2627 (J. T. Milik, with the collaboration of Matthew Black, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments
from Qumran Cave 4 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1976], p. 194).
56
For additional responses of distress or alarm, see 4QEnGiants c 22 9; Dan 4:19 (16); 7:15, and 28.
57
A. Leo Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, 46.3; Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956), p. 191.

27
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

) (Tob. 12:20, codex Sinaiticus).58 This short passage suggests that the tale of

Tobit, on some level, presents itself as a piece of divine revelation. Flannery-Dailey observed

that the dream writer motif occurs regularly in Hellenistic Jewish revelatory literature.59 More

specifically, this trope is pervasive in Aramaic literature. The outset of Daniels recounting a

dream-vision specifies that he wrote down the dream (( ) Dan. 7:1). Similarly,

VisAmram contains the following notice: And I awoke from the sleep of my eyes and wro[te]

the vision ([
( ) 4QVisAmrame 9 8). 1 Enoch 40:8; 81:6; and

82:1 reference Enochs documenting special revelation at intervals. In light of this broader trend,

Raphaels command to Tobit in Tob. 12:20 looks conspicuously like the pattern for documenting

privileged revelation communicated through dream-visions.

Third, the response of blessing and praising God reflects a common behaviour exhibited by

dreamers upon their awakening. Immediately following Raphaels departure, Tob. 12:22 in

codex Sinaiticus relates, And they blessed and sang praises to God, and they acknowledged God

for these marvelous deeds of his, when an angel of God had appeared to them (

). On two occasions in GenAp, Noah awoke from divine sent dream-visions to

bless God. 1QapGen VII 20 reads concerning wh]at I dreamt. So I blessed the great Hol[y O]ne

([]
)] , which is not unlike the analogous depiction of 1QapGen XV 22,

which relates [Then I], Noah, [awoke] from my sleep. The sun rose, and I, [Noah ] to bless the

Everlasting God ( ]) ] [ . Upon his

58
This passage is partially extant in Aramaic (4QpapToba 17 i 3) and in Hebrew (4QTobe 6 1).
59
Flannery-Dailey, Dreamers, Scribes, and Priests, pp. 13647. Some prophetic visionary oracles in the
Hebrew scriptures are also presented as inscribed revelation (e.g. Nah. 1:1; Hab. 2:2).

28
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

awakening from receiving both the mysterious content and interpretation of Nebuchadnezzars

dream-vision through a revelation of his own, Daniel blessed the God of heaven (

( ) Dan. 2:19). Likewise, Enoch blessed the Lord both within a dream-vision (1 En.

22:14; see 4QEnd 1 xi 2) as well as at the conclusion of an account (1 En. 36:4; see 4QEnc 1 xiii

29-30). In view of this trend it is entirely possible that the awakening formula in the later Greek

T. Levi 5:7 reflects a lost Aramaic source, potentially stemming from ALD: and after this I

awoke and blessed the Most High (

).60

7 Reflections on Tobits Place among the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls

This article aimed to situate the book of Tobit in a collection of writings with which it most

likely shares a compositional language. By comparing and contrasting the book of Tobit with the

wider suite of Aramaic writings discovered in the caves in the Judaean Desert, it is possible to

gain a new appreciation for how, in many ways, Tobit is in step with the literary and theological

contours of Second Temple period Aramaic literature. The discovery of these writings not only

provided new data to consider but a new interpretive sphere in which to reconsider how the book

of Tobit compares to its earliest Aramaic kin. Admittedly, some of the features detected were not

necessarily distinctive to Aramaic writings of this era. To cite but one counter example, ancestral

instruction, endogamy, and dream-visions are also patterned into the book of Jubilees, which was

originally penned in Hebrew. However, it is essential to recognize the strong concentration and

early representation of such ideas across the network of texts in the Aramaic collection. That the

60
Original language text from Marinus de Jonge (ed.), The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical
Edition of the Greek Text (PsVTGr, I, 2; Leiden: Brill, 1978).

29
Andrew B. Perrin
Pre-Proof Draft, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

same blend of motifs and emphases that characterize the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls in general

are also echoed in Tobit cannot be glossed as incidental.

An ancillary contribution of this sort of study is to add a new line of reasoning to the old

debate over Tobits compositional language. Traditionally, this issue has been viewed through

only through the window of linguistic analysis. Additional insights into philological idioms and

literary resemblances between Tobit and other Aramaic texts, such as those advanced in this

study, can add another pane to this window, since the author of Tobit has a demonstrable

awareness of several key currents of thought that run throughout the broader Aramaic tradition.

In short, Tobit fits within the literary and theological world of Second Temple period literature

penned in Aramaic. In all of this, the wider view of the heritage of ancient Judaism afforded by

the Qumran finds grants a fresh opportunity to rethink, recover, and redescribe how we imagine

the earliest existence of the literature that was received by various religious communities as

inside, outside, or in between canonical scriptures.

30