The Book of Tobit in early Christianity : Greek and Latin interpretations from the 2 nd to the 5 th century CE

With a riveting plot and vividly colourful characters, the Book of Tobit is as entertaining to its readers as it is spiritually and ethically edifying. Part of the book’s appeal might be its utilisation of various folktale motifs, such as the grateful dead, the angel in disguise, the magical animal (or the ‘big fish’), the dangerous bride and the monster in the bridal chamber. Tobit is an ‘on-the-road’ adventure story, with an angel and a demon, with tragedy and humour, with sex and modesty and, of course, a dog. On the other hand, Tobit also provides meaningful moral and social instruction regarding burial practices, almsgiving, marriage and sex, eating customs, medicine and healing, and the relationship between parents and children. It contains numerous prayers and wisdom sayings. At its core lies major theological questions, such as theodicy, redemptive justice and the value of wisdom.


Introduction
notes the consensus being between 225 and 175 BCE. The place of composition and specific details about the authorship remain unclear (Fitzmyer 2003:54;Littman 2008:xxix). It was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew, and there are currently manuscripts of Tobit in nine languages. Aramaic fragments of Tobit were discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Greek manuscript traditions of Tobit are the most complete, with a long and short version of the story. The long version is represented by Codex Sinaiticus and the short version is represented by Codex Vaticanus. The majority of scholars argue that the short version is a later recension of the long version. In the Latin manuscript tradition, there is a long version in the Vetus Latina, whilst Jerome's Vulgate version of Tobit represents the short version (for more details, see Hanhart 1984;Weeks, Gathercole & Stuckenbruck 2004). 1 Tobit was a popular source for moral as well as theological instruction in early Christianity. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of how and to what ends early Christians read and used Tobit as a religious text (whether canonical or not). The focus of the article will be on the earliest period of Christianity, from the 2nd century up to the 5th century. A critical synthesis of how early Christians used and read Tobit has not yet been undertaken. Gamberoni, in his Die Auslegung des Buches Tobias. In der griechisch-lateinischen Kirche der Antike und der Christenheit des Westens bis um 1600 (1966), does consider early Christian uses of Tobit, but it covers a wide chronological range and focuses mainly on the West (relevant for this study is his analysis of Jerome). Studies on Christian readings of Tobit, as with Gamberoni, focus mostly on Jerome and Bede. Jerome (347-420 CE) is popular for analysis because he is an important witness for the canonical history of Tobit, whilst Bede (672-735 CE) is important because he provides a lengthy and unique allegorical interpretation of Tobit (although this analysis will exclude Bede's later interpretation). Whilst many scholars have highlighted parallels and possible allusions to Tobit in the New Testament, two studies focus exclusively on the possible links between Tobit and texts in the New Testament. Skemp (2005:43-70) examines, generally, allusions to Tobit, especially in the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:18-21, and the role of Tobit in the cultural intertexture of the New Testament, especially with regard to angels, demons, healings and so on. Docherty (2013:81-94) looks at the reception of Tobit in early Christianity. Her study, however, focuses mainly on Luke-Acts, with a mere one-and-a-half page discussion (Docherty 2013:93-94) of Tobit beyond Luke-Acts in early Christianity. Finally, Downs (2016:103-272) also gives attention to the use of Tobit in early Christianity, but focuses only on its influence on Christian ideas of almsgiving. I will not focus on the possible relationship between the New Testament and Tobit in this article, because much has already been said about the topic, and at best, one can only speak of New Testament allusions to Tobit.
In this article, I will examine the early Christian reception of Tobit in more detail. The purpose is not to exhaustively list and discuss every reference to Tobit in early Christian literature, but to show the main interpretive trends in early Christianity with regards to Tobit. 2 In order to limit the material under examination, I will only focus on Greek and Latin Christian interpretations from the 2nd to the 5th century CE. How did early Christians read Tobit and for what purposes? Although there is much material available on the canonisation of Tobit, I will still provide an overview of how and why Tobit ended up in the Christian Bible, whether canonical or apocryphal. I will then focus on how the figure of Tobit and his son, Tobias, functioned as a moral exemplum in early Christianity, especially related to almsgiving and financial management, burials and the care of the dead, marriage and parenthood, prayer, the suffering and endurance of Tobit, and the role of Tobit in the Christian understanding of angels.

The canonicity of Tobit
It is traditionally thought that by the 2nd century CE, Tobit had been rejected from the Jewish canon, whilst many Christian authors continued to affirm its canonical status because of its inclusion in the Septuagint. This is not wholly incorrect, but we should be mindful of the fact that during these early centuries, both Jews and Christians were only beginning to come to grips with the notion of canon. There is also a development, albeit opaque at times, from what was initially considered sacred 'Scripture' to the later formal notion of a delimited 'canon' (Brakke 1994:395-419;Kruger 2012:35-37). Tobit was considered by some as sacred Scripture at an early point of its history, because it is included in the Septuagint. The Tobit fragments amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls also suggest that Tobit had some value as a religious text for those Jewish groups associated with the texts, albeit not canon in the strict sense of the word. On the other hand, because many of the Hebrew or Aramaic originals are lost, it might suggest that some Jewish religious groups were not interested in preserving the text (Littman 2008:xix). However, as Fitzmyer (2003:9-15) has shown, Tobit has a rich medieval rabbinic manuscript tradition (albeit different from ancient Aramaic and Hebrew versions), which suggests that it was never fully discarded in Judaism.  Patristica (1975Patristica ( -1982 database is also very useful when searching for individual comments on each verse of Tobit. In this article, when directly quoting an early Christian source, I will provide an English translation, along with the original Greek or Latin text (with its edition). When simply referring to early Christian works, without direct quotations, I will only cite the relevant English translation of the work, or where there is no translation, the critical edition of the text, if any.
(8th to 9th century CE) (Gallagher & Meade 2017:140-141, 236), although it is present in the Peshitta, as well as in the Sahidic Coptic, Ge'ez (Ethiopic), and Armenian versions of the Bible. We already know that Tobit appears in Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (in different versions and also orders). It also appears in Codices Alexandrinus (Greek; 5th century CE), Venetus (c. 10th century CE) and Amiatinus (Latin Vulgate; 8th century CE); Tobit (in Greek) is also present in two fragmentary papyri, 990 and 910, of the 3rd and 6th centuries, respectively (Gallagher & Meade 2017:283 Jerome therefore explicitly notes that Tobit is not canonical (non sunt in canone), although in a different preface he does say that these books are useful for the purpose of edification (but not for the formation of doctrine Here, again, we find the view that Tobit should not be considered canonical, but it is still useful for other 'ecclesiastical' purposes and should not be discarded.  Gallagher (2015:374) provides three possible reasons for why Jerome translated Tobit (and Judith) for the Vulgate. In the first case, he does view the books as authentic Israelite literature, despite them being written in 'Chaldean' (Aramaic). This means that Jerome felt that Tobit and Judith (surprisingly) convey accurate historical events about ancient Israel. He did not feel the same about 1-2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon or Sirach, which were composed too late (i.e. after the end of 'biblical' history) to have authority, despite professing to have Hebrew copies of 1 Maccabees and Sirach. Second, as seen above, Jerome classified both Tobit and Judith as agiografa. By using this word, Jerome might be suggesting that these books have special didactic value. In the Prologus galeatus, Jerome lists Tobit under the apocrypha. However, the Prologus galeatus was written earlier than the prefaces to Tobit and Judith, perhaps in the early 390s. However, if we follow Gallagher's (2015:370-372) argument, which also relies on the work of Skemp (2000Skemp ( :16-17, 2002 and Gamberoni (1969:74), on the later dating of the Vulgate Tobit around 405 CE, then the word agiografa becomes more significant. On the one hand, agiografa is used by Jerome to refer to the Writings (Ketuvim) of the Hebrew Bible. However, this use cannot be the case here. Gallagher (2015:371) rather argues, convincingly, that Jerome uses agiografa here to illustrate the value of Tobit for the edification of the church and perhaps to clarify what he said earlier in the Prologus galeatus. He might be shielding Tobit and Judith from negative connotations (such as heretical connotations) related to the term apocrifa. Although Jerome was not overly excited about translating Tobit into Latin (he dedicated only one day to translating it, although he has the short version of the text), he still included it in the Vulgate and dedicated it the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus. Third, Jerome probably felt that Tobit and Judith did share, in some way, in the tradition of the Hebraica veritas, and he wanted a translation of these works from a Chaldean Vorlage rather than a Greek Vorlage, as used by the Vetus Latina.
Thus, the idea that Tobit, as one of the apocryphal books of the Septuagint, was supposed to be 'hidden' or discouraged to use in early Christianity does not ring true. It was only at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the Book of Tobit and its apocryphal companions were considered deuterocanonical books by the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church also considers Tobit to be canonical. The current Protestant canon lists Tobit as part of the apocrypha. During the nascent centuries of Christianity, we might say that the canonicity of Tobit was disputed, but the majority of church fathers would have agreed that Tobit remained useful for edification and for teaching virtue. We will now turn to the ways in which early Christian writers used Tobit in their teaching.

The Book of Tobit in early Christianity
It comes as no surprise that Tobit was a popular text in early Christian thought. Some texts in Tobit were quoted quite often by many early Christian writers. For instance, the negative version of the golden rule in Tobit 4:15, 'And what you hate, do not to anyone' (NRSV), was quite popular in early Christian discourse. The text is very similar to Didache 1.2 (ed. Ehrman 2003:417): 'And whatever you do not want to happen to you, do not do to another' (πάντα δὲ ὅσα ἐὰν θελήσῃς μὴ γίνεσθαί σοι, καὶ σὺ ἄλλῳ μὴ ποίει  56, 9.68, 12.62;trans. Kitchen 2013:259, 269, 473).
Sometimes, Christians gave attention to aspects of the book that might escape the attention of the modern reader. For instance, we read that a dog accompanied Tobias and Raphael on their journey. The dog does not really feature in the storyit is mentioned when they depart (Tb 6:2) and when they return (Tb 11:4). Jacobs (2014:221-246) thoroughly discusses the significance of the dog for the immediate cultural-historical context of Tobit, whilst Macatangay (2019:128) argues that the dog is a 'concealed indication of the enduring aliveness of God's life-giving and providential intentions for his people'. Early Christian authors also saw significance in the figure of the dog. Ambrose (c. 340-397 CE), in his Hexameron 6.4.17 (trans. Savage 1961:236-237), saw the dog as a pedagogical device that served to remind Tobias to be grateful to God and his companion. The dog is a positive literary device, an example (exemplum) that Tobias should actually emulate.
Early Christian authors quite often used biblical figures as moral exempla to demonstrate and teach virtue to their congregations (Leemans & Dupont 2019:419-423). Early Christian writers also noticed the exemplary value of the characters in the Book of Tobit -even the dog, as we have just seen. The anonymous 4th-century Christian writer known as Ambrosiaster writes the following about Tobit ( Souter 1908:358-359, 361) 4.These Quaestiones were traditionally attributed to Pseudo-Augustine, but today it is accepted that they are written by the figure known as Ambrosiaster (see also Patristic Bible Commentary n.d.).
Here, Ambrosiaster admonishes Christians to follow the example of Tobit in their daily behaviour. This is a good example of how Tobit was considered to be a book useful for teaching and edification. In the short version, Tobit 12:8-9 reads slightly different (Downs 2016): Prayer with fasting and merciful action and righteousness is good. A little with righteousness is better than much with unrighteousness. It is better to practice the merciful act of almsgiving than to store up gold. For merciful action delivers from death, and it will cleanse every sin. Those who practice merciful action and righteousness will be filled with life, but those who sin are enemies of their own life. (p. 67) ἀγαθὸν προσευχὴ μετὰ νηστείας καὶ ἐλεημοσύνης καὶ δικαιοσύνης· ἀγαθὸν τὸ ὀλίγον μετὰ δικαιοσύνης ἢ πολὺ μετὰ ἀδικίας· καλὸν ποιῆσαι ἐλεημοσύνην ἢ θησαυρίσαι χρυσίον. ἐλεημοσύνη γὰρ ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται, καὶ αὐτὴ ἀποκαθαριεῖ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν· οἱ ποιοῦντες ἐλεημοσύνας καὶ δικαιοσύνας πλησθήσονται ζωῆς. (p. 67) Littman and Downs use different translations for the word ἐλεημοσύνη. Littman renders the term as 'almsgiving' whilst Downs prefers 'merciful action'. Downs (2016:59-60) is probably more accurate in his translation because he notes that ἐλεημοσύνη, in Tobit, denotes more than just the giving of alms, but refers to merciful deeds more generally. In the short version, 'prayer with fasting' [προσευχὴ μετὰ νηστείας] replaces the long version's 'prayer with truth' [προσευχὴ μετὰ ἀληθείας], which is important for the early Christian context. Giving to charity, therefore, is good as a repentance from sin [Or: is good; so too is repentance from sin]. Fasting is better than prayer, but giving to charity is better than both (καλὸν οὖν ἐλεημοσύνη ὡς μετάνοια ἁμαρτίας· κρείσσων νηστεία προσευχῆς, ἐλεημοσύνη δὲ ἀμφοτέρων). (pp. 190-191) In 2 Clement 16.4, the author quotes Tobit 12:8 from the short version, but goes so far as to say that ἐλεημοσύνη is better than both prayer and fasting. This might be because 2 Clement links ἐλεημοσύνη directly with repentance (depending on how one translates the verse from 2 Clement Ambrose warns that a hired servant could be an angel in disguise. This type of rhetoric functions well to promulgate economic justice between labourers and those who hire them. Furthermore, he reminds his audience that all Christians are also labourers of Christ. Tobit is therefore sketched as an exemplary financial manager, because he distributed his wealth justly and with virtue, which led to him making profit.

Tobit and the care of the dead
The first two chapters of the Book of Tobit focus on the goodwill of Tobit when it comes to burying his dead kin. In Chapter 2, especially, we see that Tobit leaves his meal and rushes to bury a dead countryman who was lying in the market. The care of the dead was a very contentious matter in early Christian religious practice. Rebillard (2009:100-103) argues that Tobit functions as the model par excellence of the duty to bury the dead (generally), although many Christian authors do not actually explicitly tell their audiences to follow Tobit's example. This serves to support Rebillard's overarching argument that the burial of the dead did not become a discernible duty of the church in late antiquity and that Christians did not separate themselves from their non-Christian counterparts when it came to burying the dead. Augustine still believed that providing a burial to the dead remains the duty of a Christian (Rebillard 2009:102). Augustine makes a similar point in his De cura pro mortuis gerenda 5: Whence also the funerals of the just men of old were with dutiful piety cared for, and their obsequies celebrated, and sepulture provided: and themselves whilst living did touching burial or even translation of their bodies give charge to their sons. Tobias also, to have by burying of the dead obtained favour with God, is by witness of an Angel commended. Thus, in the case of burying the dead, Tobit is indeed cited as an example by some to emphasise the duty of burying the dead, but in most cases, it is his acts of burial within his greater character of ἐλεημοσύνη that receive more attention. Tobit is admired for burying the dead, but we do not find that he is used as an example to imitate in his acts of burial.

Tobit and marriage and parenthood
Marriage, too, was a contentious matter in early Christianity. In the first five centuries of the church, marriage was considered to be inferior to the practice of virginity and sexual abstinence. This, of course, does not mean that early Christians did not have a detailed and complex marital ethic, as Michel Foucault has demonstrated in the posthumously published fourth volume of the History of Sexuality (Foucault 2018;see also De Wet 2020:1-38;Hunter 2007). Marriage is also an important motif in Tobit, especially the fact that Tobit admonishes Tobias to marry within his own tribe (e.g. Tb 4:12). Cyprian, in Ad Quirinum 3.62 (trans. Wallis 1886), uses Tobit 4:12 as a proof-text to admonish Christians to only marry within the faith.
More interesting, perhaps, is a reference in an anonymous incomplete commentary on Matthew from the 5th century on the prayer of Tobias after marrying Sarah and before expelling Asmodeus (Tb 8:1-9). The Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum (trans. Oden & Kellerman 2010) is a series of homilies, written originally in Latin, that was wrongly attributed to John Chrysostom. It is 'incomplete' because it does not cover the entire book of Matthew. Like many other early Christian authors, this anonymous author also believes that marriage is not the ideal state for men and women, and recommends celibacy in the strongest of terms.

He writes (trans. Oden & Kellerman 2010):
For if marriage itself pleased God, a glorious crown would never have been promised to those who refrain from it, nor would the celibate be loved by God when they hate marriage. It is not the one who flees from the good who is rewarded but rather the one who flees from evil. But do you wish to know how marriage is permitted … ? But we have not dared to say this to the incontinent, in whose body their soul does nothing, but their blood and that most foul heat, which arises from that maddened fire, hold total sway over them. Finally, the angel recommends to Tobit at his marriage, when he will come to that human custom, to first rise and pray and say: 'Lord, you know that I did not take a wife for passion's sake but in order to beget children' [Tb 8:7]. If he had prayed in any other way, his prayer would not have pleased God. You see, therefore, how he excuses that most foul work of the flesh for the sake of begetting children. But now that the world has increased, the necessity for procreation has been abolished. Now it is not the multitude of people but the love of the saints that delights him. (p. 25) 6 The author of this treatise goes so far as to call sexual intercourse, explicitly, sinful, although sex within marriage was a concession of God in order to multiply the human race. The main problem of marriage and sex, to the author of this treatise, is that of lust. This is a common trend in early Christian discourse. The author then specifically quotes Tobit 8:7 and uses Tobias to show that marriage and sexual intercourse without lust was permitted for the sake of procreation. The act of prayer and the absence of lust serve as prerequisites for holy conception. However, in the author's time, Tobias's example too is outdated, because the earth was already populated and procreation was no longer necessary. So here, Tobias serves as an example for the incontinent, not for the ideal celibate believers.
In the same homily, the author of this treatise uses the example of Tobias, furthermore, to admonish Christian husbands and wives to pray before engaging in sexual intercourse (trans. Oden & Kellerman 2010): Just as prayer ought to precede whenever a husband and wife are about to lie together, as the angel Raphael commanded Tobit [sic -Tobias], so that what is about to be conceived might be conceived in holiness, so when the only begotten God was about to enter the virgin, the Holy Spirit preceded, so that Christ could be born in holiness according to the body, as the Divinity entered in place of the seed. (p. 28) Because sexual intercourse is essentially sinful, prayer is required to make it acceptable as a concession before God. The author places Tobias's prayer and sexual intercourse with Sarah in parallel with the conception of Christ though the Holy Spirit. Just as Tobias prayed before intercourse with Sarah (with the danger of the demon still lurking) to sanctify their union, so too did the Holy Spirit first visit Mary before God entered her. This was an important aspect of the author's predominantly Arian theological disposition.
Thus, Tobias's cautious and ritualised approach to Sarah's demon-infested nuptial chamber served as a useful exemplary precursor for early Christians who subscribed to a sinful view of sexual intercourse. Ambrose (Hexameron 6.4.17;trans. Savage 1961:237) says that the demon is driven out by the gratitude of Tobias towards the angel. By focusing on Tobias's prayer, the absence of lust and his gratitude, it might be that some early Christians avoided the magical apotropaic ritual used to drive out the demon. The 3rd-century treatise De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima 45 (ed. Reitzenstein 1914:87), by a certain Pseudo-Cyprian, does refer to the fish in the exorcism, but this author understands the magical fish typologically in reference to Christ.
Finally, Ambrose also saw a useful exemplum in the figure of Raguel: Or think of Raguel in particular. He had such a determination to do the honourable thing that when he was asked for his daughter's hand in marriage, he would not even keep quiet about her faults, in case such silence should be construed as an attempt to mislead the girl's suitor. So, when Tobias the son of Tobit requested if he could have the girl, Raguel replied that as a blood-relative he was certainly entitled to her according to the letter of the law, but he had given her to six husbands already, and every one of them had died. And so this just man feared more for other people than he did for himself. He would rather see his daughter remain unmarried than have other men's lives put in danger by marrying her. (ed. In this text, Ambrose puts forth Raguel to show that marital transactions -and in Roman and Christian times, marriages were in fact also transactions -need to be honourable, honest and just. He goes on to state that the 'monetary value' of a marital transaction means much less than the honour of being truthful and just.
Along with issues of marriage and sexual ethics, the Book of Tobit was also useful in delineating the duty of parents to teach their children virtue. Quoting Tobit 4:5-12 and 14:10-12, Cyprian (

Tobit and prayer
The Book of Tobit contains numerous prayers and admonitions to pray, which did not go unnoticed in the early church. We have already seen above that Tobit served as the prime example, for the author of the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, to encourage prayer before sexual intercourse. In this same work, in Homily 13, the author further elaborates on the power of prayer (trans. Oden & Kellerman 2010): Just as well-selected incense delights anyone who smells it, so the prayer of the righteous is sweet before God. Do you wish to know its great honour? As soon as the prayer leaves the mouth, angels take it on their hands and offer it before God, as the archangel says to Tobit: 'I brought a reminder of your prayer before the holy One' [Tb 12:12]. (p. 118) The author links prayer to the work of the angels, and compares it to incense -this is reminiscent of Revelation 8:4, in which the prayers of the righteous are mixed with incense and offered by an angel to God. Prayer therefore engages the believer with the work of the angels (see similarly Hilary of Poitiers, Tractatus super Psalmos 129.7; ed. Zingerle 1891:652-653). Even earlier, Cyprian (De dominica oratione 33) also quotes Tobit 12:12-13 in this regard, saying: Quickly do those prayers ascend to God, which the merits of our works impose upon God. Thus did the angel Raphael stand before Tobias, as he always prayed and always worked …. (trans. Deferrari et al. 1958:155)  Origen's treatise, De oratione, also uses Tobit and Sarah as exempla on the importance and usefulness of prayer. In De oratione 14.2 (ed. Koetschau 1899:320-321;trans. Greer 1979:109), Origen discerns between four kinds of prayer (based on 1 Tim 2:1), namely supplication (δέησις), prayer (προσευχή), intercession (ἔντευξις) and thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία). In this section, Origen uses the example of Tobit (in verses 3:1-2) as an instance of προσευχή [prayer], which Origen describes thus: 'prayer is something nobler offered by a person with praise and for greater objects' (trans. Greer 1979:109) [τὴν δὲ προσευχὴν τὴν μετὰ δοξολογίας περὶ μειζόνων μεγαλοφυέστερον ἀναπεμπομένην ὑπό του] (ed. Koetschau 1899:320). Prayer is a great form of supplication, because the angels also pray alongside believers, according to Origen (De oratione 11.1; trans. Greer 1979:101), which is testified by the role of Raphael in the prayers of both Tobit and Sarah. In fact, Origen (De oratione 31.5) believes that creates two 'churches', one of human beings and one of angels: It is likely, then, that when a great number of people are assembled genuinely for the glory of Christ, each one's angel, who is around each of those who fear Him, encamps with that man whom he is believed to guard and order. As a result, when the saints are gathered together, there is a double Church, one of men and the other of angels. And if Raphael says that he offered only the prayer of Tobit for a 'reminder' (Tb 12:12,(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17), and after him that of Sarah, who later became Tobit's daughter-in-law when she married Tobias, what must we say when a great many journey together with the same mind and the same purpose and are made one body in Christ? (trans. Greer 1979:166-167) εἰκός ἐστι, πλειόνων συνεληλυθότων γνησίως εἰς δόξαν Χριστοῦ, παρεμβαλεῖν τὸν ἑκάστου ἄγγελον τὸν 'κύκλῳ' ἑκάστου 'τῶν φοβουμένων' μετὰ τούτου τοῦ ἀνδρὸς, ὃν φρουρεῖν καὶ οἰκονομεῖν πεπίστευται· ὥστ' εἶναι ἐπὶ τῶν ἁγίων συναθροιζομένων διπλῆν ἐκκλησίαν, τὴν μὲν ἀνθρώπων τὴν δὲ ἀγγέλων. καὶ εἰ μόνου τοῦ Τωβὴτ ὁ Ῥαφαήλ φησιν εἰς 'μνημόσυνον' ἀνενηνοχέναι τὴν προσευχὴν καὶ μετ' αὐτὸν Σάῤῥας, τῆς ὑστέρως νύμφης γενομένης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὸ γεγαμῆσθαι αὐτὴν τῷ Τοβίᾳ, τί λεκτέον, πλειόνων ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ νοῒ καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ συνοδευόντων καὶ σωματοποιουμένων ἐν Χριστῷ; (ed. Koetschau 1899:398) Prayer therefore increases the ranks of the church by adding angels to its ranks. Origen uses the prayers of Tobit to demonstrate this point. The story of Tobit was important in highlighting the role of angels in the act of prayer. We will discuss angels in a following section.
Finally, Prosper of Aquitaine (390-455 CE), the late antique author who significantly promulgated Augustine's doctrine of grace, emphasises the power of prayer within the context of divine election and predestination, with reference to Tobit 6:16-18. In this text, Raphael assures Tobit that he will not die should he enter Sarah's bridal chamber, because Sarah was destined for him before the world was made (Tb 6:18). However, Raphael still tells Tobit to pray before lying with Sarah. Prosper (De vocatione omnium gentium 2.36) refers to these texts to illustrate that even though God has predestined certain events to take place, and nothing can change this, 'the design of divine election does not do away with attention to prayer ' (trans. De Letter 1952:151)  Here, we see that Prosper uses Tobit to demonstrate an important theological principle about divine foreknowledge and election, and not simply to make a moral point about prayer.

The suffering and endurance of Tobit
Tobit also functioned as an exemplum of someone who had to endure hardship and temptation with patience. It is no surprise that the figures of Tobit and Job intersect so closely in this regard (Portier-Young 2005:14-27). The Book of Tobit also follows Job in some canon lists, such as in Codex Claromontanus, the Mommsen Catalogue and in the canon lists of Innocent I and Augustine. The author of the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, in Homily 3, also states: 'People are tested either in their weaknesses or in the losses of their goods or in the death of loved ones, as Job and Tobit were' (trans. Oden & Kellerman 2010:52). Patience, or endurance (ὑπομονή; patientia), was an important virtue in early Christian thought, and one that became a symbol of courage and masculinity (Shaw 1996:269-312). In this regard, Tobit, like Job, was quite exemplary. During the time of Cyprian, the Mediterranean world was ravaged by a terrible plague from 249 to 262 CE (sometimes also known as the Plague of Cyprian, because of Cyprian's detailed testimony of the plague). During this time, in 252, he wrote De mortalitate, in which he provides scriptural paraenesis in light of the devastation of the plague (Brent 2010:106). After referring to the suffering of Job, Cyprian (De mortalitate 10) also refers to Tobit: And Tobias, after his splendid works, after the many glorious commendations of his mercy, having suffered blindness of the eyes, fearing and blessing God in his adversity, by that very affliction of his body increased in praise. And him also his wife tried to corrupt, saying: 'Where are your acts of clemency? Behold what you are suffering!' [Tb 2:14]. But he steadfast and firm in his fear of God and armed for all endurance of suffering by the faith of his religion did not yield in his affliction to the temptations of his weak wife, but deserved more of God through his greater patience. (trans. Deferrari et al. 1958:206-207)  As Job's friends ridiculed him, Cyprian says, so too did Tobit's wife. However, like Job, Tobit remained steadfast. Tobit is sketched not only as a brave and masculine believer, but he is almost viewed as a type of martyr-soldier in this regard. Murphy (2019:87) rightly notes that by using the example of Tobit in this way, Cyprian teaches Christians that '[t]he key is to recast such sufferings from stumbling blocks to battles, so that faith is not broken, but proved'. Through his suffering, Tobit becomes an example of masculinity and almost militant faith -in this case, Tobit is an example that must be imitated, especially because Christians not only suffer from the dangers of plague but also need to battle the devil. So, let us be informed by the Scripture of how praiseworthy holy Tobit is, whose devotion captivity did not diminish, whom the loss of his eyes did not stop from blessing God, whom the exhaustion of his resources did not divert from the way of justice and truth. Indeed, need tests a just man and proves him to be just, and keeping fairness when in poverty is the true and perfect justice.
From things that diminish the devotion of some, praiseworthy Tobit gained an increase of it. For want, he says, humiliates a man, and he who is humiliated cannot keep justice. But holy Tobit's spirit, intent on God, was neither broken by captivity nor humiliated by want, because he buried the bodies of the slain in spite of the prohibition, and, certain of God's generosity, he was compassionate even with the small means that he had, Ambrosiaster uses the example of Tobit to show that by losing that which has earthly value, one has the ability to increase one's spiritual treasure. It therefore becomes a question of character formation. As with Job, Ambrosiaster again notes that God not only restored, indeed increased, Tobit's earthly blessings, but he also gained a heavenly reward. By linking Tobit with the figure of Job, early Christian authors created a line of exempla that had to demonstrate that God remains just, despite allowing human beings to suffer. This reaches to the core of the problem of theodicy. Early Christian authors would respond to this problem by stating that suffering earthly loss and temptations always serves to increase one's spiritual riches. Suffering acts like a medicine or therapy for the soul, as many would say (Mayer 2015:337-351). In this way, Tobit functions not only as a type of martyr, as Cyprian seems to hint, but he even becomes a type of ascetic figure, because his soul and spirit are strengthened by the destruction of his body (his blindness and old age) and loss of his earthly possessions (see also De Wet 2016:491-521; Murphy 2019:79-88).

Tobit and angels
Finally, and as we have already repeatedly noted in this study, the Book of Tobit was also important for early Christian understandings of angels, because Raphael plays such a central role in the story. We have already seen that Tobit was used to link the act of prayer with the activity of angels. The author of the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum (Homily 5) again notes, with reference to Tobit, that God uses angels for healing as well as for dispelling demons (trans. Oden & Kellerman 2010:73; see also Hippolytus, In Danielem 1.28.6; eds. Bardy & Lefèvre 1947:120). Jerome (Commentaria in Danielem 8.16-17;trans. Archer 1958:88) also refers to the meaning of Raphael's name, which means 'the healing or the medicine of God'.
Origen relied on the story of Tobias and Raphael to demonstrate his teaching that all human beings have an accompanying or 'guardian' angel: That some thoughts are suggested to human hearts either by good or evil angels is shown both by the angel that accompanied Tobias [Tb 5:5ff] and by the word of the prophet, saying, And the angel who was speaking in me answered [Zch 1:14]; and the book of The Shepherd asserts the same thing, teaching that two angels accompany each human being. (ed. The Book of Tobit is used in a significant moral-theological way by Origen in this case. He uses the text to show that angels, both good and evil, have the ability to affect an individual's behaviour. Raphael is then not simply Tobias' companion, but he functions, theologically, as Tobias's guardian angel and the one who shapes Tobias's thoughts and behaviour.

Conclusion
The importance of the Book of Tobit in early Christian Greek and Latin writers should not be understated. Whether Tobit was part of the canon or not, we see a wide range of uses of the book in early Christian literature. Although some authors state that Tobit was useful, not as canon, but for simple teaching purposes, it does not seem as if Tobit was used in any way different from other figures in canonical literature. In fact, it is only Origen and Jerome who tend to refer to Tobit with a disclaimer that some, especially the Jews, did not consider it canonical. Some verses in Tobit, like 4:15 (negative golden mean) and 12:8-9 (almsgiving delivers from death), were part of the 'staple' of proof-texts used by early Christian authors. Tobit seems to have been especially popular amongst Latin Christian writers of the West, especially Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, Ambrose and, notably, Augustine. Its absence in many Greek 4th-century authors from the East shows that it might have been less popular in the East than in the West.
However, most importantly, Tobit was used as a typical exemplum for various moral issues in early Christian thought. He is described as the ideal charitable giver and financial manager. In this guise, Tobit acts as an example for all Christians to emulate. In other cases, Tobit is an example that is commendable, but not necessarily one to imitate, such as his charitable grave-digging. In terms of marriage and Christian sexual ethics, for some, Tobias, the son of Tobit, stood as an example of the importance to choose a Christian wife, and to pray before sexual intercourse. In this regard, for some, Tobit was an outdated example, because it was better not to marry and procreate. Furthermore, Tobit was a very important source for early Christian formulations of prayer and teachings pertaining to angels. Tobit was also a fitting companion to the canonical figure of Job, who endured suffering with patience and faithfulness. It comes as no surprise that when Bede composed his detailed allegorical interpretation of Tobit, the Book of Tobit already had a legacy of interpretation in the early church -so much so that Tobit's prayer in Chapter 13 was a structuring tool for Augustine's Confessiones. What this study further shows us is that the concepts of 'canon' and 'apocrypha' were still quite fluid and opaque in the first four centuries of early Christianity, and that the study of the so-called Old Testament apocrypha, and the Septuagint more generally, remains crucial to gaining a fuller understanding of early Christian notions of biblical interpretation, scriptural pedagogy and canonical authority.