When Religion Becomes Evil

Now available at alibris.com

( 4.8/5.0 ★ | 363 downloads )
-- Click the link to download --

https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.26
539780060506537&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2
Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780060506537
When Religion Becomes Evil

ISBN: 9780060506537
Category: Media > Books
File Fomat: PDF, EPUB, DOC...
File Details: 3.8 MB
Language: English
Website: alibris.com
Short description: Harper San Francisco 2002. Unless Listed in this
description, VG or Better.

DOWNLOAD: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&
offerid=1494105.26539780060506537&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2F
www.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780060506537
 When Religion Becomes
Evil

• Click the link: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.2653978006050653

7&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780060506537 to do
latest version of When Religion Becomes Evil in multiple formats such as PDF, EPUB, and more.

• Don’t miss the chance to explore our extensive collection of high-quality resources, books, and guides on
our website. Visit us regularly to stay updated with new titles and gain access to even more valuable
materials.
.
 CHAPTER II MATERIALS FOR CRITICISM THE diffusion of
the story of Ahikar is so wide, that it requires somewhat more than
an average linguistic equipment to treat the whole of the forms and
versions that have come to light. We shall see reason to believe that
it is a companion to the book of Tobit and, in a less striking degree,
to the book of Daniel ; and that it ought to be bound up with other
biblical and semibiblical matter of the same kind under the heading
of ‘ Ninevite “and Babylonian legends.” But if it be such a volume as
that title would indicate and belong to the same period which
produced Tobit and Daniel, then the probability is that it has, like
them, an original form that was either Hebrew or Aramaic. And we
should expect, a priori, that this original would give rise to two main
versions, a Syriac and a Greek. We must apply critical methods to
test this hypothesis, just as we should do in the case of Tobit. When
we have settled that question it will not be so difficult to determine
what subordinate versions depend on the Greek and Syriac
respectively. That is, we should naturally expect that the Slavonic
version would come from a Greek base, even though we have not
succeeded in actually recovering such an underlying document. The
case of the adaptations which pass as ‘lives of Aesop’ will require a
separate treatment. On the Oriental side, there will probably be little
difficulty in deriving the Arabic version from the Syriac and the
Ethiopic from the Arabic. But the problem of the origin of the
Armenian version will be more
 XXii INTRODUCTION difficult. Whether there are other lost
versions is another point that must be reserved for further study. It
is quite possible that the story may have passed into India by way of
the Old Persian, in which case it may perhaps be still lurking
amongst the Parsee literature. Benfey went so far as to attempt to
connect the story with the earlier Indian literature and to recognize
Ahikar in the wise Vizier Cakatala of the Cukapasati legends, but his
suggestion has not been favourably received. We shall be satisfied if
we can find sufficient evidence for an underlying Hebrew or Aramaic
text, and if we can throw some light upon the early Greek and Syriac
texts in their relation to this lost primitive and to one another. But in
order to open the discussion on these points, we must describe the
sources from which our extant versions are derived and from which
they may be emended. (1) The Syriac version. Of the Syriac,
properly so called, there is not much extant. ° We have, however, a
fragment in the British Museum, a copy in the Cambridge University
Library and a copy at Berlin. (S,). The fragment in the British
Museum is a single leaf in a Nestorian Ms. of the 12th or 13th
century: it is numbered 7200 amongst the Additional mss. and the
leaf that contains Ahikar is the 114th. It is a good deal water-stained
and is consequently difficult to decipher. We have printed it
separately, as the text appears to be good. (S,). The Cambridge ms.
belongs to the collection that was formerly in the possession of the
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and is now numbered
Add. 2020 in the University Catalogue. The following is the
description of it in the Catalogue : Univ Cant. Add. 2020. Paper,
about 12 in. by 8: 190 leaves, of which several are soiled and
mutilated, especially f. 158. F. 190 is blank. The
 INTRODUCTION XXlil quires were originally twenty in
number, but the first and second and one leaf of the third have been
lost, and their place is taken by the modern supply ff. 1—5. The
remaining quires have 10 leaves, except on [8], \. [22] and “Xa [5].
There is a lacuna after f. 184. The writing (27 to 30 lines in a page)
is a good Nestorian serta of the year 2009 = a.p. 1697. This volume
contains 1. Histories of saints and other matters chiefly theological.
5. The proverbs or history of Ahikar the wise, the scribe of
Sanhéribh, king of Assyria and Nineveh f. 66%. 6. A short extract
from the maxims of Solomon f. 78°. 7. Fables of the wise Josephus
(Aesopus) f. 78*. 10. Other fables of Josephus (Aesopus) f. 105”.
etc. etc. (S;). The Berlin Ms. is Cod. Sachau. 336. I am sorry not to
have been able to collate it. : (S,, Ss, S,). These signs refer to three
more copies that have come to our knowledge as being in the
possession of the American Mission at Ooroomiah. All of them are
modern transcripts, but one of them (8,) is said to be made from an
exemplar of an early date. (2) Arabic and Karshuni teats. We have
given especial attention to the Arabic text as published from a
Karshuni Ms. by Salhani (Contes Arubes: Beyrout), and to certain
copies in the University Library at Cambridge and in the British
Museum. (K,). Of these the most important is a Cambridge ms.
(Add. 2886), formerly in the collection of the Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge. It is a very late Karshuni text, on paper. The
story of Ahikar begins on f. 81° and goes to f. 106%. (K,). Next to
this comes a MS. in the British Museum from
 XXIV INTRODUCTION the collection of Claudius J. Rich, and
numbered Add. 7209. It is a Karshuni Ms. on paper and contains the
story of Ahikar on ff. 182°—213°. (K,). We have not examined the
Gotha Ms. 2652 which contains on ff. 47*—64° a Karshuni text of
the legend. The No. of this Ms. is given by Cornill, Buch der weisen
Philosophen p. 32, as 589, but by Kuhn in Byzantin. Zeitschrift 1.
129 as 2562. The text of the sayings of Ahikar was printed from this
MS. by Cornill. (K,). A similar Ms. appears to be described by
Assemani as No. xxxu1. of Syriac Mss. from Aleppo; and (K;)
Meissner appears to have another of the same type from the Sachau
collection at Berlin. This Ms. seems to be a later acquisition than
those described in the Kurzes Verzeichniss der Sachawschen
Sammlung. It is written in a Neo-Aramaic dialect ; and if we rightly
understand Lidzbarski (Geschichten und Lieder p. X) it is a
translation made from the Arabic by the deacon Isaiah of Kullith in
the Tur-Abdin. On this Ms. (?) and on the printed text of Salhani,
Lidzbarski bases his translation. Of Arabic texts proper, there may
probably be found examples in the library at Copenhagen and in the
Vatican Library. (A,). Copenhagen. Cod. Arab. CCXXXVI., written in
1670, and containing on ff. 1—41, ‘historiam fabulosam ‘Haiq&ri,
Persici philosophi, qui San’haribi aetate vixisse fertur.’ (A,). Assemani
notes Cod. Arab. x1. (written in 1766) from the collection of Pope
Innocent XIII. : (A;) and Cod. 55 amongst the Arabic Mss. in the
Vatican. (3)
 INTRODUCTION XXV We have not ventured to print the
Aethiopic text, but have made some use of Cornill’s rendering of it.
(4) Armenian version. Of this version Mr Conybeare gives us the
following description, including both copies and printed texts.
(Arm,=Bod.). A ms. in the Bodleian Library, not yet catalogued or
numbered. This is a paper MS., in a rare form of notergir or small
cursive. The first page of Khikar has been torn out in such a way as
to leave the beginnings of the last six lines on recto and verso. (Arm,
= Ven.). No. 482 in the Library of San Lazaro in Venice, written in
bolorgir or large cursive, on parchment, undated, but of the late
fifteenth or early sixteenth century. (Arm, = Paris 92). In the
Bibliothéque Nationale of Paris, Ancien Fonds Arménien No. 92, on
paper. In this ms. only the last half of Khikar is contained from p.
141 of the printed text to the end. The scribe has added at the end
of it the date 1067 of the Armenian era=a.D. 1619. The hand is a
peculiar one, and the piece begins on fol. 179. (Arm, = Paris Supp.
58). Bibliothéque Nationale, Fonds Arm. Supplément No. 58. On
paper, in notergir or small cursive, illwritten in the seventeenth
century. The text occupies fol. 253 to end of the ms. but is
incomplete, and breaks off at p. 141. (Arm, = Paris 131).
Bibliothéque Nationale, Anc. Fonds Arm. No. 181, contains the text
on foll. 213—228, written on "paper, probably late in the
seventeenth century, in an untidy notergir hand. (Arm, = Paris 69).
Bibliotheque Nationale, Anc. Fonds Arm. No. 69. A large quarto,
well-written in large bolorgir or cursive, on charta bombycina in the
seventeenth century. The text of Khikar begins with the précepts,
the prelude being absent. (Arm, = Bod. Canon). Bodleian Library,
Ms. Canon. Orient. 131; written in large clear bolorgir or cursive on
charta bombycina. L, A. ¢
 XXvi INTRODUCTION Khikar occupies foll. 1—36". This
codex was router in New Djulfa or Ispahan a.p. 1697 by Hazrapet
the priest for the use of a person named Israel. Khikar is followed by
the Romance of the Seven Sages and by the story of Barlaam and
Josaphat. (Arm,=Edjm.). In the Library of Edjmiatzin, No. 2048 in
the new Catalogue, a small well-written codex, in notergir or small
cursive, on charta bombycina of about A.D. 1600. Of this codex Mr
Conybeare transcribed in the year 1891 the exordium and the first
eighteen precepts. To the foregoing may be added the following
copies contained in catalogues or otherwise known to exist: In the
catalogue of the library of Edjmiatzin printed in Tiflis in 18638, Nos.
1633 [a.p. 1604] TEES LD pene all on paper in small cursive 1986
[a.p. 1623]! P 51 [AD. 1642]]| Recently acquired by the British
Museum, a small cursive Ms. on paper, written in the 18th cent. The
Berlin Library contains (see Dr Karamian’s catalogue of Arm. MS.) a
MS. of Khikar (No. 83 =Ms. Or. Peterm. 1. 147) of the year 1698,
which contains the precepts on ff. 1—26". In this Ms. as in Bodley
Canon. Or. 181 Khikar is followed by the History of the Seven Sages.
It should further be noticed that the Armenian Khikar has been three
times printed at Constantinople. Details of the three editiofis are
given in the Armenian Bibliography issued at San Lazaro, Venice, in
1883. The first was printed in 1708 under the title ‘The Book of the
History of the Brazen City, and the Questions of the Damsel and
Youth. And the History of Khikar and of king Phohloula and so forth,
which is a picture of the world.’ The editor was one Sargis. The next
edition was in 1731 under the title, ‘The Book of the History called
the Brazen City. And the instructive and helpful sayings of the wise
man Khikar, with other profitable sayings.
 INTRODUCTION XXVli Printed in the year of our era 1106
(=A.D. 1781) in the press of the humble Astouatsatour. The third
edition was in 1862 at the press of R. J. Qurqdshean. (5) The Greek
version. (Aes.). For the elucidation of this version we have printed
those parts of the legends of the life and death of Aesop which
appear to be an adaptation of the story of Ahikar. Our text is taken
from Eberhard, Fabulae Romanenses Graece conscriptae. The part
that corresponds to the story of Ahikar begins on p. 285, exxill, and
continues to p. 297, end of cxxxii. There is a good deal of variation
in these Aesop legends. (6) The Slavonic version. (SL). Our text of
this version is a translation from the German of Jagié, printed in
Byzant. Zeitsch. 1. pp. 107—126. No attempt has been made to
follow up the Russian investigations of the subject. [There is also a
Rumanian version; see Kuhn in Byzant. Zevtsch. 1. p. 180.] These,
then, are the chief authorities for the text and its tradition. The
editions of the Arabian Nights, and especially the translations, are
hardly to be taken as authorities, on account of the freedom with
which they handle the matter. [To the foregoing must now be added
(7) The Old Turkish version which we have here given is a
transliteration and a translation from a Vienna MSs, (Cod. 468 of the
Mechitarist Library) and, (8) which ought really to be first and
foremost, the Aramaic version from Elephantiné, which we have
described below.]
 CHAPTER ITI OF THE PRINCIPAL CHARACTERS IN THE
STORY OF AHIKAR WE will commence our investigation into the
primitive legend which underlies all the versions described above by
enquiring into the tradition of the names of the chief personages in
the story, with the view of determining the proper forms of those
names, and of finding out anything further about the leading
characters, First of all, with regard to the spelling of the name of the
hero of the legend. We have found him described as Haykar [Heykar,
Hikar] in the Arabic story: from two Karshuni mss. which contain the
story (K, and K,) we have the spelling Ahikar and Hikar. The Syriac
ms. in the British Museum has Ahikar, and so have the Cambridge
and Berlin Syriac mss. The Armenian text has Khikar which does not
agree perfectly with any of the forms quoted, nor with the
transliteration of ’Ayvayapos in the Armenian Tobit. The evidence
suggests a Syriac form Ahikar from which the Arabic, Karshuni and
Aethiopic are derived. ‘he Slavonic form is Akyrios which can hardly
be primitive. Now let us turn to the book of Tobit. The book exists in
two Greek recensions and in Aramaic: of the two Greek recensions,
that found in the Sinaitic s. differs so radically from the text of the
Vatican and Alexandrian ss. that the Cambridge editors have felt
obliged to print it separately at the foot of the text which is based on
the Vatican ms. We must, then, examine carefully the evidence that
is furnished by the two recensions when they may happen to differ.
The passages to be examined are as follows:
The text on this page is estimated to be only 43.96%
accurate

INTRODUCTION XX1xX Tobit i. 21... Vatican text. kai

éBacitevoev SayepSovds 6 vids O oe = > > ae NF ? , avrod dvr’
avrod, kai érafev "Aytdyapov tov ‘“Avand vidy tod ddeApov pou él
macav Thy éxdoyoreiavy THs Bactelas avrod kal emt macav rip
Sioiknow. Kat nkiooev Axtdxapos epi euod, kai jAOov . 4 > els
Nweuy. *Axedyapos de fv 6 oivoydos 5 os , . ee kal él rov SaxtvAlov
kal dtouxntys Kal éxdoytoTns, Kal Kxatéotnoev avtov 6 Zaxepdovds,
vids, ex Sevrépas: jv bé e&ddeAdds pov. c. i. \2 , Ras Bastar GAD
atte kal émopevOny mpos larpovs, kai ov apédnody pe: “Axidxapos
dé erpepév pe €ws ob erropevOry eis Thy "EAAupaida. c. x1 kai
éyévero xapa maar Tois €v Nwevy dSeAois abtod. Kai mapeyévero
Axidxapos kai NaoBas 6 é£ddedpos avrov. Sinaitic teat. kal
€Bagirevoey Sayxepdovds vids re anne .» tat atrod per’ airdv, kai
érakev ’Ayeiyapov tov ‘AvaiA Tov Tod ddeAdod pou vidy émi wacay
thy éxdoyoriay ths BactAeias adbrod, kai avrés eiyev rHv eovaiav émi
macav tiv Swoixnow. rére nkiacev *Ayeixa epi €uov, kal karnAOoy ei:
xelxapos mepl éuov, kal karmdOov eis 4 La > , A > c thy Nuveun.
Ayxetxapos yap nv oO dpxtovoydos kal éml rov daxrudiou Kal
Stouxynrys Kal exdoytoTys él Sevvaynpeip Bacrdéws’ Acoupiar, kai
xaréotncev avrov Sayepdoves ex Sevrépas. jv dé age , re ,
e€dSedghos pov cai €k THs ovyyevias pov. kal éml Sapyeddvos
Baciréws.... 10. kal émopevdpny mpds Tovs iarpovs BeparevOjva, kal
da@ evexpioody pe Ta , rae > a pdppaka, rorovT@ waddov
eLervupdodvro <3 , a ' , of 6pOadpoi pov Tois ANevKdpacwy péxpt 9
. Hyak RR Tov dmotupiwOynvat. Kat iunv ddivaros Ce et 9 * td tois
6pOadpots ery réowepa. Kal waves = , , s Rice oi adeAdoi pov
éhurovvTo trepi ewod, kal > , » s yo ge a Axesdyapos erpepév pe
ern Svo mpd rod abrov Badioa els rHv ’Eupaida. 17 16: €v TH hpépa
taurn eyevero xapa racw Tois lovdaious Trois obaw ev Nivevn. kal
mapeyévovto “Ayetkap kat Najsad of é&dSedo abrod xaipovres mpos
TaBeww. c. xiv. 10. réxvoy, ide ti émoincey ’ASdp *Axuaxdpo TS
Opéyavte abrdv, ws éx roi gords Hyayev abrov eis Td oKdros Kai bc
dvrarédxev alto: Kai Aytdxapov pev fcocer, éxeivg S€ 7d dvramddopa
dmedéOn, Kat abtos karéBy eis Td oKdTos. Mavacois émoinoey
edenuoovryny, Kai éodOn éx mayiSos Oavdrov fs emngev airg, ’Addp
dé évémecer eis THY Tayida kal dm@Xero. ie, madiov, dca NadaB
émoincev *Axetkap@ TO exOpépavte adrdv, ovxi xX Pe t p ) X E a a
23 Cav katnvéxOn cistiy yy ; kal dmédaxev 6 Oebs Thy aripiay kara.
mpdacwmoy aiTou: cal e&ndOev eis rd Pas *Ayxixapos, Kal Nadd@
elondOev eis 76 oKdTOS TOU aidvos ¢ , ms Ore e(ntnoev
amoxteivat Ayeixapoy. év TO Twoijaai pe eAenuoovvyny é&ndOev x
fp a BM 7H d u] w ; _ ” Mee ths mayiSos Tov Oavarov hy émngev
ara A Naddf, kal NadaB érecer eis rv wayida a : i I > re Tov Oavdrov
kal aww ecev avrov.
 XxX INTRODUCTION c. xiv. 15. kal HKovcev mpl i)
aroOavely avrov kal eidev Kal feoveey mpo ToD drroTy dmodiay
Nuvev) fy jypaddaticey Oaveiv avrov THY St a Nentatyy ‘Ret
NaBovxodovocsp kai ’Acinpos. eldev THY aixypakootay abris eyaueug
eis Mydelav fy RxHaA@TIGEY AxtdKapos 5 Bacidreds Tis Mndias. It
will be noticed that while the Vatican Ms. has “Ayudxapos and once,
by some extraordinary confusion, Mavacc%js, the Sinaitic has
"Axelyapos, "Axeudxapos, "Axraxapos, Axesdp, ’Ayixapos, and
’AxetKxapos ; and in three cases the Sinaitic text of Tobit has the
form which is equivalent to the Syro-Arabic tradition of the legend of
Ahikar. Moreover the same form appears in the versions of the book
of Tobit, which are derived from the Greek of Tobit. Thus the Peshito
as edited by Lagarde has TWAawrv, and tassax, of which the former
is a scribe’s blunder for Yasser’, The Old Latin has the same form
Achicarus, and the Vulgate, which has corrected this by means of a
Chaldee text, has fallen, in the single case in which it has preserved
the references to the legend, into the same error that we detected in
the Peshito, viz. Achior’. Of the other forms in which the Tobit legend
occurs we do not need to speak at length. It is sufficient to have
shown that the evidence for the spelling Ahikar is very strong, as far
as regards the Septuagint and the versions that are dependent on it?
Turning to the nephew of Ahikar, we find the texts in sad 1 From this
Meissner conjectures that the Chaldee of which Jerome speaks was
the Peshito. ? [The name in question has now turned up, and our
spelling is justified. The following note by C. J. Ball in the Expository
Times for July 1908, p. 473 will put the matter clearly. ‘An old
Babylonian tablet in the Library of St John’s College, Oxford, sets at
rest the question of the origin of the curious name Achicarus (Tob. i,
21 ete.). Here we find among the witnesses to a deed of sale,
executed in the reign of Apel Sin, the fourth king of the First Dynasty
(circ. 2100 B.c.) a certain Achu-wagqar (A-chu-wa-qar) the kamarum
(perhaps priest, cf. Heb. DDD Zeph. i. 4). This confirms the Tp'N® of
the Hebrew and Aramaic versions of Tobit, and proves that the name
is not Persian, but pure Semitic. Other tablets in the same collection
give us Abam-wagqar Ili-wagar,’]
 INTRODUCTION XXX1 confusion, both as regards his
relationship to the chief character, and the spelling of his name. The
Vatican text treats us to Nasbas and Adam. Of these it has been
suggested that the former is meant for the younger brother of
Nadan: the latter arises out of éroince Naddw by a wrong division of
the words. The Sinaitic MSs. on the other hand varies between
Na@dé and Nada of which the latter is the proper form to edit. We
have thus two related forms Nadau and Naéa® to set over against
the Naéddy of the Syro-Arabic Ahikar. It is not necessary to decide
which form has the priority in a case where the modifications are
mere phonetic variations. As for the versions of Tobit, they show the
same variants, plus an occasional independent variation in the
transcription. The Old Latin has Nabal and Nabad and the Vulgate
the equivalent Nabath. The Peshito reads mas and ah which are
Syriac blunders for Nadab and Nadan. The Slavonic version of Ahikar
reads Anadan. The two names, then, can be restored in the LXX. of
Tobit into close agreement with the Syro-Arabic forms of the legend
of Ahikar. And there can be no residuum of doubt that the same
persons are intended. There is, however, much confusion in the
tradition of the Septuagint. According to the legend of Ahikar, Nadab
is his sister's son, and the whole story turns on this relationship. But
in the Vatican Tobit, we are first told that Ahikar is the son of Tobit’s
brother, then that he is his é&aéeAdos; then that Nasbas (Nadab ?)
is é€adeAgos to Ahikar, and finally that Ahikar is Nadab’s foster-
father. We thus have, if we may strain the meaning of é€aSegos, a
table of consanguinity as follows: Tobiel ! Anael Tobit I ou 1 Ahikar
ee Nadab The Sinaitic text of Tob. xi. 18, on the other hand,
supported by the Vulgate (Achior et Nabath consobrini Tobiae), will
have it that both Ahikar and Nadab are é€adedpou to Tobit, but this
 XxXxil INTRODUCTION looks suspiciously like a case of a
plural misread for a singular. Removing Tobiae from the Vulgate, and
restoring the singular consobrinus (=é£d8edos) in the sense of
nephew, we are in harmony with the Syro-Arabic legend: and the
names of the leading characters are now practically settled. We pass
on to notice briefly the names of the other personages involved, and
to ask whether there is any supplementary knowledge to be
obtained concerning the wise Ahikar and his fortunes or misfortunes.
The only characters that are clearly identified as common to the
Tobit and Ahikar legends are Ahikar and his nephew and the king of
Assyria. According to Tobit the historical setting of the story is as
follows: Enemessar leads the Israelites of the northern kingdom into
captivity (c. i. 2): Upon his death ’AynpeiA his son rules in his stead
(c. i. 15). He is slain by his two sons, and LayepSovds his son rules
in his stead (c. 1. 21). YayepSovds appoints Ahikar his prime
minister and the latter brings Tobit into court favour. Moreover
Layepdoves had appointed Ahikar to fill the chief offices, being
himself a son by the second wife! (6 Layepdoves vids éx Sevtépas c.
1. 21, 22). And at the close of the story (c. xiv. 15) we are informed
that Tobias the son of Tobit lived to see the desolation of Nineveh by
Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus. Such is the story as told in the
Vatican text; it is much confused both in the conception and in the
transcription. Enemessar is certainly Shalmaneser IV., who came up
against Samaria in the 7th year of Hoshea king of Israel. *AynpeiX is
a pure blunder arising from the dropping of a repeated syllable in
eBaciAeycen| Cen JAyHpeIM 1 Which should probably be corrected
to 6 Daxepdédvos vids, éx Seurépas, i.e. the son of Zaxepdav
appointed him the second time.
 INTRODUCTION XXXlll from which we see that Sennacherib
is intended as the successor of Shalmaneser. It should have been
Sargon. The oversight is due to the fact that the writer of Tobit is
following the record of II. Kings where Sargon is not expressly
mentioned. According to the same record (c. xix. 37) we find that
Sennacherib is slain by Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons, and
that Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead. He is the Layepdav or
LayepSovds of the book of Tobit, which definitely alludes to the
murder of Sennacherib by his sons, and has evidently been using the
Biblical account. The period of history covered by Tobit and his son
Tobias ranges as follows: Shalmaneser IV, 727—722 Bc. Sargon 722
—705 Sennacherib 705—681 Esarhaddon 681—668 Assurbanipal
668—626, to which must be added that the fall of Nineveh to which
Tobit refers is assigned to the year 606. This last event is regarded
as due to the action of Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus; from which
we may identify Ahasuerus with Cyaxares, king of Media, and where
we must substitute for Nebuchadnezzar his father Nabopolassar,
unless we prefer to argue that one of the two kings of Babylon was
general for the other, in which case Tobit’s statement might pass
muster: for the fall of Nineveh was due to a combined attack of
Medes and Babylonians. As the book assigns an age of 158 years to
Tobias and 107 to his father Tobit, the period of history referred to
would be fairly covered by the two long lives in question. So that we
must at least credit the author with an attempt at historical accuracy.
~The account given in the Sinaitic Ms. will be found more correct in
the names: it gives Sennacherim for Sennacherib, and for
Esarhaddon has once Sapyed@v which is very near to the Assyrian
form. (The spelling Layepdav of the Alexandrian ms. should also be
noticed.) In the closing passage of the book the Sinaitic Ms. makes
the captivity and fall of Nineveh the work of ’Aytayapos : L. A. é
 XXX1V INTRODUCTION this I should take to be a pure
blunder, caused by the omission of Nebuchadnezzar, and the
confusion of ’Acdnpos with the frequently recurring ’Axvdyapos. Now
let us turn to the legend of Ahikar. The versions agree in referring
the story to the days of Sennacherib, the son of Sarhadum, king of
Assyria and Nineveh. There can be no doubt that Esarhaddon is
meant, and that the order of the kings is the reverse of the historical
order as given in Tobit. We should naturally conclude that the
mistake is primitive, for all these Mesopotamian legends are weak in
history and chronology: and in that case, the blunder would be
corrected in Tobit, who has evidently tried to be historical, by
reference to II. Kings’. It may be suggested that perhaps the original
draft of Ahikar ran as follows: ‘in the days of Sennacherib and in the
days of Esarhaddon, kings of Assyria’; and that this would explain
why Tobit says that Esarhaddon made Ahikar Grand Vizier the
second time. But a reference to later passages in the story in which
Sennacherib speaks of Ahikar’s fidelity in the days of ‘my father
Esarhaddon ’ shows that the mistake runs right through the story,
the whole of which is laid in the reign of Sennacherib. So we suspect
that it is this same blunder which Tobit is trying to correct when he
says that Esarhaddon vids é« Sevrépas appointed Ahikar. He had
before him a statement that ‘the son of Esarhaddon made Ahikar
vizier the second time,’ ie. that he restored him to his original
dignity; this has been badly corrected into ‘Esarhaddon, a son é«
Seurépas.’ The awkwardness of the text of Tobit is due to his direct
dependence upon Ahikar, whose historical details he is trying to
correct. We shall allow, then, the existence of the blunder in the
order of the kings, in the earliest form of the legend? } [It turns out
that the mistake is not as primitive as suggested, if we may judge
from the Hlephantiné papyrus, which has the right historical order.] ?
The proposal to replace Zapynddév by Sargon is another suggestion
for evading the difficulty. There are, however, too many places to be
treated to make the correction likely: we must say with Sir Isaac
Newton (Chronology, p. 282), ‘ Asserhadon called Sarchedon by
Tobit.’
 INTRODUCTION XXXV The other names which occur in the
story of Ahikar do not appear in the book of Tobit; careful enquiry
must be made whether they belong to the primitive form of the
legend. They are (i) the name of Ahikar’s wife, (ii) the name of
Nadan’s younger brother, (ii1) the name of Ahikar’s friend the
executioner, (iv) the name of the king of Persia with whom Nadan
intrigues, (v) the name of Ahikar’s slave, who is set to watch the
imprisoned Nadan, (vi) the names of two boys who are trained to
ride on eagles and build a castle in the air, (vil) the name of the
criminal substituted for Ahikar at the time of execution. (i) In the
latter part of the story of Ahikar, the sixty wives of the opening
sentences are reduced to a single dominant figure of a very clever
woman, who shares her husband’s counsels and assists his schemes.
We are inclined to think that she does not belong to the original
draft of the story. She is called in Syriac Ashfegani, »sXQzr’: and in
Arabic (gars! or (ieee! which appear to be equivalent to the Syriac
form. The Armenian has Abestan and Arphestan, and the Slavonic
drops it altogether. (ii) Nadan’s younger brother appears in Syriac as
Nabuzardan, a correct Assyrian form, which may however be derived
from II. Kings xxv.: in the Arabic we find Benuzarden which is a
mere corruption of the foregoing, and Naudan. In the Vatican text of
Tobit, there is a remote probability that he appears as Nasbas, but
the identification is very uncertain. (iii) The executioner is known in
Syriac as Yabusemakh, which is a corruption of Nabusemakh (the
meaning of which may be ‘Nebo has supported’), with which we may
compare Ahisamakh in Ex, xxxi. 6. The Arabic arid Karshuni texts
sometimes give the original form Nabusemakh, and sometimes show
corruptions of it, as Ibn Samikh, or Ibn Samikh Meskin Kanti, where
Meskin may have arisen out of Samikh, and Kanti may stand for an
original Syriac »&a =my colleague. The Armenian has, in fact, «
Abusmag, my comrade,’ In Slavonic he is simply ‘my friend, which
supports the explanation. [The newly-found papyrus from
Elephantiné solves the riddle
 XXXvV1 INTRODUCTION by giving us the Babylonian form
Nebogumigkun, from which the Arabic forms can be at once
explained.] It appears both from this case and the preceding one
that the name of an Assyrian deity is involved: this may also be seen
in the Aesop story, which makes the name of the executioner
Hermippos; Hermes is, in fact, the Greek equivalent of Nebo. Cf
Abulfaraj, Hist. Dynast. 11. ‘His name is Nebuchadnezzar, ic. Hermes
speaks.’ We have here a powerful argument against the priority of
the Aesop legends. (iv) The king of Persia is called, in S,, Akhi bar
Hamselim, sasloocis t> »Aec, which the Arabic makes into ‘Achish,
the son of Shah the wise’; I hardly know how to explain this curious
form: perhaps the original reading was Ahasuerus. He is said in the
Arabic to be the king of Alasl5 wpill ie. Persia and the Barbarians:
Meissner had already conjectured that this should be corrected to
Persia and Elam!; and in fact the Cambridge Syriac has Elam. This is
further confirmed by the Slavonic version, which reads ‘the king of
Persia, Nalon,’ an independent corruption of the same phrase. The
expression ‘King of Persia and Elam’ certainly has an archaic look.
‘The trait is lost in the Armenian. (v) The name of the slave who
writes down the reproaches which Ahikar pronounces over his
nephew has also undergone a good deal of mutation. The Slavonic
Vagubil has a primitive appearance, especially when we compare it
with the biblical Abednego which is supposed to stand for ‘servant of
Nebo’; and the suggested equivalence of Nego and Nebo is
confirmed by the Arabic readings Nebubel and Nabuhal. In Armenian
he appears as Béliar. We have, however, the suspicion that here also
the name of the Assyrian deity is involved. (vi) The two boys who
are trained to ride on eagles and build a castle in the air are called in
Arabic copies Nabuhail 1 p, 177, and ef. Lidzbarski, p. 13 note.
 INTRODUCTION xxxvil and Tabshalom; other copies omit
them. The Syriac (8,) has Ubael and Tabshalam. In the Armenian
they are absent and so in the Slavonic. Of these names the first
seems to be added on the hypothesis that it is one of the flying boys
that is set to watch Nadan. The second name is also suspect, as not
belonging to the original draft of the story. For it appears to be
borrowed from the Arabic version of the stories of Kalilah and
Dimnah, where it has the form Dabshalim, and although the name
has a Semitic cast, it is -of Indian origin. It appears in the Syriac
Kalilah as Dabsharam, and Benfey has conjectured that this goes
back to a Sanskrit Devagarman’. Burton, also, was struck by the
similarity of these forms, and says ‘The sound bears a suspicious
resemblance to Dabshalim in c. 1 of the fables of Pilpay (i.e. Kalilah
and Dimnah?).’ It is, of course, quite conceivable that the episode of
the flying boys may belong to the later developments of the story.
(vii) The Cambridge Syriac gives a name to the slave who is
executed in the place of Ahikar; he is called Manziphar. The
Armenian gives this as Seniphar. The meaning of the name is not
clear, nor is it certain that it is primitive. On reviewing these proper
names, we shall be struck by the prominence of Assyrian influence,
especially in the recurrence of the name Nebo. It is even possible
that to the instances given above we should add Nadan as a worn
down form of Nabudan. And the occurrence of such Assyriasms is
the more remarkable in view of the fact that in Tobit all the names,
or almost all, are compounds of El and Yah. We have also in Ahikar
some significant allusions to the great god Bel, which should be set
side by side with the references to Nebo. It may be asked, What are
the actual deities referred to in Ahikar? In spite of the suggestion of
Tobit that Ahikar is a relation of his, and therefore, presumably, a
Jew, the suspicion which arises from the comparison of the versions
iter se is that 1 See Keith-Falconer, Book of Kalilah and Dimnah, pp.
270, 271. 2 See Burton, p. 17. :
 XXXVill INTRODUCTION he is a polytheist: and that, just as
the later forms of the story have reformed its revengeful ethics, so
they have improved the theology of its hero. We find that in the
Arabic version, the sage consults astrologers, wizards and learned
men, with regard to his childless condition, and is directed to pray to
the gods. No special gods are named, but when we turn to the
Armenian text we find that Ahikar ‘enters to the gods with many
offerings, lights a fire, and casts incense thereon and presents
offerings and sacrifices victims.’ ‘Then he kneels down and prays to
the gods, as follows: ‘O my lords, Belshim and Shimel and Shamin,
command and give me male seed.’ Here it certainly appears as if
there had been revision, on the part of the Syriac, in the interests of
monotheism. The names, however, in the Armenian are perplexing:
they do not seem to be bona-fide Assyrian deities, in spite of the
appearance of Bel in composition. And this is the more remarkable
because, in the Egyptian episodes, which one would be tempted on
some accounts to regard as later developments, the Assyrian Bel is
not only mentioned, but he is also very well defined. Thus we find in
the Arabic that Haikar compared his master Sennacherib to the God
of Heaven! (having previously compared Pharaoh and his nobles to
Bel and his priests, and to the month of Nisan and its flowers). He
(the God of Heaven) has power to prevent Bel and his nobles from
going through the streets and sends storms which destroy the glory
of Nisan. Lidzbarski has suggested that we have here an allusion to
the procession of the statues of Bel and the other gods on the
Assyrian New Year’s Day: an event which is commonly recorded on
the Assyrian monuments, and in unauspicious times appears in the
form ‘Bel came not forth.’ If this allusion is rightly recognised, the
matter must be early, and this part of the Egyptian episode is
justified. 1 [The title ‘God of Heaven’ is found in thé book of
Nehemiah, and we find it confirmed in the contemporary petition
from Elephantiné, sent by Jedoniah and his companions to Bagoas
the Persian governor. ]
 INTRODUCTION XXX1X It has an earlier flavour than most
of the Biblical apocryphal allusions, and is so far removed from the
puerilities of ‘Bel and the Dragon’ as to deserve to be assigned to an
earlier date. One must not, however, assume of necessity that the
allusions belong to the time of Nineveh or of Babylon. Bel and Nebo
may occur at a much later date than that to which we refer the
composition of the legend. Such names might be introduced by a
story-teller, who knew the worship of Bel and Nebo as it continued
to exist long after the fall of the great Mesopotamian monarchies.
Thus we find in the Doctrine of Addai that the people of Edessa were
converted to Christianity from the worship of Bel and Nebo; eg. p.
23, ‘Who is this Nebo, an idol which ye worship, and Bel whom ye
honour?!’ p. 32, ‘They threw down the altars upon which they
sacrificed before Nebo and Bel their gods’; p. 48, ‘Even the priests of
Bel and Nebo divided with them the honour at all times.’ It seems to
be admitted in this composition that the worship of Bel and Nebo
had not been wholly expelled from Edessa by Christianity*. Still, on
the whole, there are allusions in the story of Ahikar to Assyrian
deities, which seem to have an early form and to betray a close
acquaintance with Ninevite worship. The difficulty is in explaining the
Armenian names; for we have in the two places to which reference
has been made, in the account of Ahikar’s Egyptian visit, the
following contrasts: (a) | Syriac. Arabic. Armenian. Bel. The idol Bel.
The dig (or daemons). (0) (Erased.) The god of heaven. Belshim. 1
The New Testament, also, has an allusion to Nebo in the name of
Barnabas, and makes a spiritual translation of the name to suit the
new faith. [The references to Bel and Nebo in the Doctrine of Addai
can be paralleled from the Acts of Sharbil: ‘ All the gods were
brought together and decorated and set up in honour, both Nebo
and Bel, together with their companions.’ The very name of Sharbil
encloses that of the deity, just us the name of Barnabas does. |
 xl INTRODUCTION Perhaps the confusion arises from the
removal of the name of Bel, and the substitution of some more
general or more orthodox name; is it possible that Belshim arises out
of an attempt to correct Bel into ‘Lord of Heaven’? If so, we should
have to restore the name of Bel in two places in the Armenian, and
this would also have the effect of restoring it in the Syriac and Arabic
parallels. The story would, then, be definitely polytheistic, not only in
the Egyptian episode, but from the very commencement ; and we
should have a better reason for the non-canonisation of the story
than the imperfection of its ethics. But even if, as seems probable,
Belshim be allowed to stand in the second passage of the Armenian,
and be equated with the ‘ god of heaven,’ there is still a polytheistic
element left in each of the versions in the first of the passages
referred to: nor is it easy to see how the charge of polytheism is
altogether to be evaded.
 CHAPTER IV OF CERTAIN OBSCURE ALLUSIONS TO
AHIKAR 1N GREEK LITERATURE WE now propose to enquire
whether anything is known of Ahikar in Greek literature, and
whether such allusions to him as can be detected imply a knowledge
of the legend. The most important passage is undoubtedly one in
Clement of Alexandria, who tells us that the Greek philosopher
Democritus had made a study of the Babylonian ethics, and had
incorporated with his own writings a translation of the pillar of
Akikar. As the passage is generally understood, Clement is taken to
say that we can convict Democritus of plagiarism by observing the
way in which he prefixes ‘thus saith Democritus’ to his own writings:
meaning, as I suppose, that the appropriated matter can be isolated
from Democritus’ own ethical collections. He goes on to speak of
Democritus’ pride over his travels and his visits to Babylon, Persia
and Egypt. In these travels he came across and translated ‘the pillar
of Akikar” But here is the passage itself for reference’: Anpoxpitos
yap Tovs BaBvrwvious Aoyous HOvKods TeToinras. Aéyeras yap THv
“AKixapov otHAnv EppnvevOcioay, Tots Slows cuvtdEas cvyypaupaci.
Kdotw emionunvacba Tap’ ‘’ fal , / f ’ ‘\ ei \ \ avtov, Tade Aéyee
Anudxpitos, ypadovtos* Kai wv Kal rept adrod, 7 ceuvuvomevos pnoi
Tov éml TH ToAvmabig. 1 Clem. Alex. 1 Strom. ed. Potter, i. 356.
 xh INTRODUCTION Now it is not easy to find out what
Clement means by this. How could Democritus have made
Babylonian discourses? And who is Akikar from whose pillar he
translated and stole? And how is the composition or transference of
the ethical discourses indicated by Democritus ? It seems clear from
the whole trend of Clement’s argument on the theft from barbarian
philosophers by the Greeks, whom a wise man described to Solon as
‘aye children,’ that he is charging Democritus as well as Solon and
Pythagoras with appropriating the ideas and language of other races
and teachers. But can wezointas bear this meaning? It is not easy to
admit that it can. It therefore seems to us that, (if we do not emend
to mepiroveiras), either 74Ocxcovs is an error of the text for
(dccovs, or that some word like iS:cods has dropped out after
7O:x0vs. So that it means ‘Democritus has made the Babylonian
[ethic] treatises [his own],’ for he incorporates the column of Akikar
with his own writings and prefixes the words ‘Thus saith Democritus.
Such a proceeding is certainly ‘flat burglary, to be classed along with
the Greek thefts from Moses. The objection to this reconstruction of
the passage! would seem to lie in the fact that it has already been
quoted by Eusebius from Clement in the Praeparatio Evangelica in
the words cai Anucxpitos 5€ ért mpdtepov Tos BaBvdAwvious
Aoyous HOtKovs TerrovjoOar A€yeTas?: so that the error would have
to be older than Eusebius. Probably we can overrule this objection
by admitting the antiquity of the error; and then we find that we
have made excellent sense of a difficult passage by the suggested
restoration. Since the writings of Democritus are certainly ethical, we
incline to believe that a word has dropped after 7@ucovs. The
sayings of Ahikar might well be described as Adyo BaBvdwvior
HOvxot, and then we identify readily the Akikar of Clement with the
hero of our legend. 1 T see that my suggestion has been in part
anticipated by Cobet, who proposes to replace #Ocxovs by lélous. 2
Lib. x. o. 4.
 INTRODUCTION xliti It is a remarkable fact that not only
Clement, but also Theophrastus and Strabo, seem to know
something of a man or a book which is in singular agreement with
the name of the hero of our tale. Thus Diogenes Laertius! tells us
that Theophrastus composed inter alia a book which is called
"Axiyapos: and Strabo in recounting famous persons of antiquity
who had ‘mantic’ gifts enumerates wapa tois Bootopavois Ayaixapov.
The names are closely related to the name in the book of Tobit; and
we are inclined to think that they represent one and the same
person, and that the story and teaching of Ahikar had early
penetrated into Greece’, But how, it will be asked, could so early a
writer as Democritus be thought to have borrowed ethical precepts
from an Assyrian sage, unless we were to assign an extraordinary
antiquity to Ahikar, and give a reality to the romance concerning him
and to his ethical precepts which is not warranted either by the
document itself or by the character of the Apocryphal products with
which it is associated ? But the error in this case lies in the other
direction, viz. in taking Democritus too seriously. Of the writings
which circulate under his name, and of the sayings ascribed to him,
many are falsely inscribed. It was easy to refer ethical precepts to
the greatest of the Greek ethical teachers. We must not assume
that, because. Clement of Alexandria assigns a work to Democritus,
he was necessarily responsible for it. All that we are 1 Lib. v. ¢. 50. 2
It will be objected (a) that Boowopavos is not » proper description
for Ahikar: (b) that there is no mention of any pillar upon which his
sayings were inscribed, in any of the versions that have come to
light. The force of these objections may be diminished by remarking,
(a) that Boowopavois is probably corrupt, (b) that although there is
no mention of any pillar in the eastern forms of the story, the Aesop
legends represent king Lykéros as ordering a golden statue to be
erected to Aesop, and they also say that after Aesop had been killed
by the Delphians, the oracle required them to propitiate the gods by
setting up a pillar to his memory (orpdyy avéornoav). [The objection
(a) is sustained, for, as Frinkel suggests in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v.
Borsippa, we should read Bopormyvés and regard Ahikar as a
genuine Babylonian from Borsippa.]
 xliv INTRODUCTION entitled to say is that certain works,
especially collections of gnomic sayings, passed under his name.
Clement, indeed, may affirm that amongst these sayings are certain
passages taken by Democritus from the column of Ahikar, but that is
merely Clement’s criticism of the work. In any case the modern
philosophical writers do not regard the ethical work referred to by
Clement as a genuine work of Democritus. Natorp, who is the best
editor of the Democritean Fragments, says of the book in question
that it is certainly not genuine, and he refers for confirmation to
Miiller, who in his Fragments of Greek Historians had expressed a
similar view. There is, therefore, no reason why the question of the
relative dates of Democritus and Ahikar should preclude us from
identifying the hero of our legend with the writer on ethics to whom
Clement, Strabo and Theophrastus refer. Ahikar is certainly, for the
ancient world, a great teacher of ethics. As a result of the increasing
intercourse between East and West, his precepts as well as his story
penetrated into Greece. All that we really want is a little more
evidence that sayings like his passed current in Greek collections,
and that there are traces of their circulation under the name of
Democritus. In this direction, our first inspection of the Greek
gnomic collections, and of Democritus in particular, is likely to be
disappointing, for the sayings of Ahikar are Biblical in character and
Semitic in tone, whilst those of Democritus are fundamentally Greek.
But a little closer study finds some curious points of contact between
the two systems. We observe that Democritus frequently appears in
collections of gnomic sayings as Democrates, and that, from
similarity in the names, the latter often appears in the form
Socrates’. In the Aethiopic Book of the Wise Philosophers we have a
collection of sayings, translated from the Arabic into the Aethiopic, 1
e.g. Cornill’s Book of the Wise Philosophers from the Aethiopic
contains an unknown Greek (?) proverb, which in his Frankfort
Codex is ascribed to Socrates, but in the Tiibingen copy to
Demokrates: see Cornill, p. 34.
 INTRODUCTION xlv with names of authors attached. This
Arabic collection is based either wholly or in part upon a Syriac
collection which underlies it. For it opens with a long preface, of
which the first words are: ‘In the name of God, the compassionate,
the merciful, in whom is our confidence and our help, we begin with
the help of our Lord Jesus Christ to write the book of the wise
philosophers ete.’ Here it is easy to see that a Moslem formula has
been superposed upon the common preface of the Syrian scribes, as
it occurs in hosts of Mss.; the collection is, therefore, either wholly or
in part, from a Syriac base. Amongst the sayings we find fifteen
sayings of Ahikar to Nadan, which the reader will find printed below:
they agree closely with those in the edited stories and may all be
accepted as belonging to the ethics of Ahikar. The second of these
sayings will be found ascribed to Democrates in Shahrestani}. The
thirteenth of the sayings runs as follows: ‘It is better to stumble with
the foot, than with the tongue; and do not utter any discourse with
thy tongue before thou hast taken counsel with thyself’ The first half
of the saying is ascribed to Socrates in the collections of Maximus’. It
is not improbable that the saying has found its way into the Parallels
of Maximus from a Democritean collection. But as it occurs in the
sayings of Ahikar, in Ethiopic and in Syriac, in Arabic and Slavonic,
we have a suspicion that there is a coincident ascription of the
saying both to Democritus and to Ahikar, and 1 Ed. Cureton, p. 306,
the proverb in question being, ‘the tail of a dog gives him meat, his
voice gets him blows.’ 2 No. 940. In the collection of Pearls of Rabbi
Solomon Ibn Gabirol, the saying is given in an anonymous form, as
follows: No. 357. ‘He was wont to say, A slip of the tongue is more
dangerous than the slip of the foot, for the slip of the tongue may
cost thy head, whilst the slip of the foot may easily be cured.’ [We
shall see presently, when we come to discuss Smend’s criticisms,
that there are a number of further coincidences with Shahrestani.]
 xlvi INTRODUCTION that in the proverbial wisdom of the
latter it is one of the primitive elements. While, then, we have not
sufficient evidence to decide finally the question of Democritean
thefts from Ahikar, enough has been said to establish some
probability that Clement of Alexandria did actually refer to sayings of
Ahikar, which he found paralleled in a pseudo-Democritean
collection. The supposition has the merit of simplicity and explains
most of the obscure allusions in the Greek writers referred to above.
But this must not be taken as suggesting that Ahikar was a real
person. The circulation of the story in which he is the leading figure,
and the separate circulation. of his maxims, are sufficient to explain
his celebrity. He is as substantial as Tobit, but not more so; the two
creations stand or fall, historically, together. Origen, also, seems to
have. known something about Ahikar, though we are not able to
affirm that his allusions go beyond the references in Tobit. In his
famous letter to Africanus, on the question of the canonicity of. the
story of Susanna, in reply to critical objections made by Africanus,
he urges that the captive Jews may really have become wealthy and
influential, as they are represented to be in Susanna, for we have
the parallel cases of Tobit and Achwacar. Here he seems to be
referring to the book of Tobit. The question, however, will arise,
whether in the context he betrays any knowledge of Ahikar outside
the book of Tobit? I think not. Yet it is certainly curious that, a little
earlier in his argument, he tries to explain the punishment of the
Unfaithful Servant in the Gospel (which we shall presently show to
have been influenced by Ahikar), with its perplexing dvyoropuyoes
avrov, and says that this punishment is inflicted by angels in the next
world. As we shall see it is this very story in the Gospel that is so
remarkably illustrated by the Ahikar legend. But Origen appears to
have been led to it by the language in Susanna (cxioev ce), and not
by any reflection upon the coincidences between Ahikar and in the
New Testament. We cannot, then,
 INTRODUCTION xlvii affirm that the knowledge of Ahikar
which Origen had goes beyond that which is contained in the book
of Tobit. Before leaving this part of the subject, we draw attention to
two further references to Ahikar, one from the West, and the other
from the East. The first consists of certain allusions in the recently
published Miscellanea Casinese. The passage occurs in a tract
entitled Inventiones nominum from a St Gall codex, No. 130 (Saec.
viil.). Duo sunt Nadab, unus est Nadab filius Aaron, alius Nadab
Tubia qui vivum obruit Achia Caroneum qui se nutrierat. Correct the
text to Nadab in Tubia (cf. Azaria in Tubia which occurs a little later);
and for Achia Caronewm read Achiacarum eum. There is nothing in
this passage that goes beyond the book of Tobit, and it is to Tobit
that the writer expressly refers. The Latin of Tobit actually has vivum
deduait and qui eum nutrivit. It does not, therefore, appear that any
fresh source of information has been combined with the book of
Tobit+. The Eastern reference is in the Lexicon of Bar Bahlul, and
does not seem to depend directly upon Tobit, but upon the Syriac
and Arabic version of Ahikar. A copy of this lexicon in my possession
contains not only the ordinary Syriac and Arabic glosses, with some
added ones, but it has also a series of Armenian glosses in Syriac
characters, In this Ms. we have a Syro-Armenian gloss to the effect
that Ahikar (taser) is the vizier of a king named Haikar (tas). Here
the Syriac legend, as well as the Arabic, has been drawn upon: as is
shown by the double spelling and by the allusion to his position as
vizier to the king. We shall now pass on to discuss the relations
between Ahikar and the books of the Old and New Testaments. 1 [A
reference should be made to the mosaic of Monnus at Tréves, where
Ahikar appears as a well-known sage: the restoration Acicarus from
the legible ...icar... is due to Studemund. See Jahrbuch des Kaiserl.
Deutschen Archiol. Instituts, Bd. v. 1890, pp. 1—5. See also B. Lewis’
paper on the Mosaic of Monnus, p. 12, § v.] 2 This is the first ms. I
have ever seen of Armenian written Syriacé.
 CHAPTER V OF THE STORY OF AHIKAR IN RELATION TO
TOBIT WE now proceed to examine how the legend of Ahikar stands
in relation to the books of the Old and New Testaments, so as to
give it its proper chronological position amongst them, and to
determine from what books, if any, it makes quotations, and by what
books it is itself quoted. We have in part anticipated this enquiry in
the discussion of its connexion with the book of Tobit. Let us take up
the thread of the argument again at this point. The main reasons for
assuming the priority of the story of Ahikar to that of Tobit are,
briefly, as follows. It has been shown, by a study of the names, that
the same persons are intended in the two legends; and it is clear
that the allusions in Tobit to Ahikar and Nadan imply that the legend
of Ahikar was known to the author of Tobit, and the only question is
whether this legend was in its written form or in a traditional and
oral dress. Now it is very difficult to see why Tobit should have thrust
in these allusions to Ahikar, which do not really affect his story and
are not involved in it by any link of necessity, unless the story had
been before the mind of the author of Tobit as a literary model. Does
the placing of the two stories side by side justify us in believing that
one of them was the model of the other, and that they are almost a
pair of companion pictures ? We may answer this question by
pointing to the remarkable