The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Restoring the Greek Tobit
Open accessAbstract
Abstract The modern consensus that the “Long” text of Tobit is earlier than the “Short” has brought about a paralysis in attempts to restore the Greek, with the very unsatisfactory text in Sinaiticus coming to serve as our de facto best effort. It is important to appreciate that the Long witnesses do not constitute a specific and coherent recension, capable of reconstruction in its own right, but are potentially miscellaneous texts, that happened individually to elude the two major revisions of the tradition. Original readings are preserved in both the revised and unrevised witnesses, and if we are to progress then we need to employ and evaluate all those witnesses. The paper ends with an attempt to reconstruct the original form of 4:7-19, which is lacking in Sinaiticus, as an illustration of the scope for such progress.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The early loss of unity in the Greek text form of Tobit may be due to the combination of Tobit's popularity and its lack of canonical authority, with textual instability among the Greek witnesses caused by dissatisfaction with either the original Greek translation or the narrative.
“The early loss of unity in the Greek text form may be due to the combination of Tobit's popularity and its lack of canonical authority, with the textual 'instability' among the Greek witnesses caused by dissatisfaction with either the original Greek translation or the narrative (Weeks 2006; 2013).”
From Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal Books (2021) · cites this paper as Weeks 2013
GII is long, even expanded; its best witnesses are Codex Sinaiticus and, for Tob. 3:6-6:16, the eleventh-century MS 319.
“ii) GII is 'long', even expanded. Its best witnesses are Codex Sinaiticus, and for Tob. 3:6-6:16, the eleventh-century MS 319 (Weeks 2006: 16-18; Weeks 2013; Gathercole 2006).”
From Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal Books (2021) · cites this paper as Weeks 2013
Other anomalies in Tobit include the introduction of Raphael and Ragouel as Tobit's ancestors in Sinaiticus at Tob. 1:1, and the replacement of Nahum in Vaticanus at Tob. 14:4 with Jonah.
“Other anomalies include the introduction of Raphael and Ragouel as Tobit's ancestors in Sinaiticus at Tob. 1:1 (Weeks 2013: 2 n. 3), and the replacement of Nahum in Vaticanus at Tob. 14:4 with Jonah (cf. also 14:8) (Bredin 2006).”
From Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal Books (2021) · cites this paper as Weeks 2013: 2 n. 3
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal Books
Salvesen, A. G. (2021) · The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199665716.013.21
Metadata
- Authors
- Weeks, S.
- Affiliations
- Durham University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Weeks, Stuart
- ORCID
- Weeks, Stuart
- Venue
- Journal for the Study of Judaism
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-15
- ISSN
- 0047-2212 (ISSN-L)
- 1570-0631
- OpenAlex
- W2037473386
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2021: 23 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 7.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Journal for the Study of Judaism (publishedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Classical Studies and Philology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Historical and Linguistic Studies
- Keywords
- Tobit, Greek text, textual criticism, textual reconstruction, textual witnesses, Septuagint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
