§ 10. RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TEACHING

The theological, religious, and moral outlook of our author is far from unimportant. Unfortunately the comparatively lengthy treatment which the other problems of the book have claimed allows only of a very brief résumé.

A. The author’s—as opposed to the later redactors’—religious presuppositions are those of the popular mind tinged with the point of view of the newest developments of the official and orthodox leaders of the post-exilic period, in its earlier rather than its later phases. This is amply justified by the following considerations:—

(1) Doctrine of God. The full Monotheism of the post-exilic period is presupposed.1 The descriptions of Jahveh’s qualities are manifold.2 Since He is a transcendental Deity, He hears men’s prayers through angelic mediation. The tendency to distinguish between Jahveh, the invisible and ineffable, and His personified self-manifestation and revelation also appears, but only in the two expressions, ‘the Glory’, 3:16, 12:12, 15, and ‘the Name’, 3:11, 8:5, 11:14, 12:6, 13:18.

(2) Angelology.3—The angelology of the author as compared with that of Jubilees, 1 Enoch and Rv, is at a somewhat embryonic stage of its evolution. As compared, on the other hand, with that of the Old Testament as a whole, it seems to stand well within the threshold of the subsequent period. It is especially noticeable that Raphael here represents in germ the ideas which afterwards crystallized in the fully developed doctrine of Michael, with whose functions Raphael’s should therefore be carefully compared.4

Chapter 12 is without parallel in the extant literature of Judaism. The whole story illustrates the free, untutored, and vigorous type of speculation existent a little before the rise of Pharisaic regulations of the dogma. This belief in the angel’s intervention, moreover, always remained essentially characteristic of the people’s religion as opposed to that of the learned and cultured.5 With 3:16 f., 12:12, 15 (14), cf. Jub. 30:20, Testaments of Dan; 6, of Asher 6, of Levi 5.

(3) Eschatology. The author shows no advance upon the pre-exilic period in his conceptions of death and its consequences. The grave is external in its annihilating effects, 3:6, 10, cf. 4:10, 12:9. In relation to the nation, however, he stands possibly almost on a threshold of the Apocalyptic tendency. He has worked out for himself a crude and simple, but yet unmistakable, philosophy of the future. Jerusalem at the end of a given period will be rebuilt and the Temple sumptuously restored, the scattered tribes reunited, and—to his credit—the heathen will worship the God of Israel, 13:7–18 a, 14:4–6. See further, Charles, Eschatology, 1899, pp. 165 f.

B. It is in the practical sphere that our author’s religious and moral outlook find their fullest expression. His hero is a rare instance of an almost perfect combination and realization, in actual life, of the priestly and prophetic ideals.

(1) The cultus, 6 as practised at Jerusalem, the precepts of the law (tithes, marriage,7 purity, &c.) and Jerusalem itself, are primary factors in the author’s life, 1:3–13; 2:1–9, and their future perfection is painted in glowing colours, 13:7–18 a, 14:4–7.

(2) The ‘Three Pillars of Judaism’, prayer, almsgiving, and fasting are inculcated. Fasting (2:4) has not reached the culmination of its development.8 Almsgiving, however, as in Sirach,9 ranks high among the non-sacrificial duties of Judaism, 1:3, 16, 2:14, 4:7 ff., 16, 12:9 f., 14:9, is the sine qua non of a long and prosperous life, a virtue, to be practised by the richest, 1:16 f., 2:10, and the poorest, 2:14, and occupies a prominent position in the ‘teaching’ both of Tobit, 4:3–19, and of Raphael, 12:8. ‘Righteousness’ is thus already tending to take the lower level and become synonymous to some extent with almsgiving,10 but devotion to the cultus and legalism do not result in this book in hypocrisy or externalism, since the whole is pervaded with a mysticism which finds its highest expression in heart-felt prayer as the immediate means of communion with God.11

This is evident not simply from the number and length of the prayers which are quoted, but from the care which has been devoted to their position, structural arrangement, and contents.12 Tobit’s (3:16 f.) and Sarah’s (3:10–15) prayers, uttered with face turned to Jerusalem, and the immediate answer to them in 3:16, 17, are the climax to the Introduction (1:3–3:17). Both are probably typical of the form in which prayers were cast in the writer’s day. Each contains an invocation,1 followed by an act of adoration (3:2, 11), and the specific supplication with a lengthy retrospective explanation. Both are of almost equal length, in spite of Sarah’s preliminary history (3:7–15) being otherwise much briefer than Tobit’s (1:3–3:6). Sarah’s is the more concrete and individualistic, Tobit’s the wider in its outlook and the more intercessory. The same structural arrangement characterizes 8:5–7, 16 f. and the frequent thanksgivings. The liturgical Amen appears in 8:8.2 Finally, Raphael sets prayer in its rightful position in 12:8 and asserts its efficacy in 12:12, which is followed by the exile’s prayer of exhortation and consolation, 13:1–6. In none of them, however, is there a single petition for the conversion of the non-Jewish world.

(3) Morality and ethics are inculcated in all departments of life, e.g. piety towards parents, the duty of Jewish marriage, the purity of wedlock,3 and in matters of everyday life,4 from a stand-point as high as, if not higher than, Aḥiḳar’s. It was such moralizing precepts as these, rather than theological dogmas, which did most to regulate and direct contemporary life—both Jewish and pagan.

(4) A special plea seems to be entered in relation to contemporary conduct towards the dead. Though from a literary point of view our author is dependent upon Aḥiḳar directly for 4:17, yet it is quite clear that he is inculcating an actual religious practice. In fact, at the time our author lived, it would appear to have been a subject of considerable dispute as to whether such offerings were right and proper and a matter of duty (cf. Sir. 7:33; Job 4:17) or whether they were definitely to be excluded by Judaism5 and its adherents (Sir 30:18, 19; Ep. Jer. 31, 32; Wisdom 14:15, 19:3; Sibyl. Or. 8:382–4). At the time when Jubilees 22:17 was written they were apparently regarded as characteristic of the Gentiles. See, further, Charles, op. cit. pp. 23–31.