Book of Tobias

[Larry_R]

I have the Douay Rheims Version of the bible, and I am interested in what appears to be an omission from more recent translations of the bible (NAB etc).
Tobias 6:17-22
For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mucle, which have not understanding over them the devil has power… . . thou shall take the virgin with the fear of the loard, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seeed of Abraham though mayst obtain a blessing in children.

Why is this nowhere to be found in the more recent translations? It sure helps support the churches view on children, contraception etc.

Larry R

 

[Todd_Easton]

Regarding these verses, *A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, *edited by Bernard Orchard, published by Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953, page 400, says, underlining added:17. Although the doctrine in this verse, so beautifully as well as realistically expressed, is both beyond question and in agreement with Jewish ideas on the sanctity of marriage, it can hardly be proved that the verse as it stands is authentic. Since it is found only in Vg[the Latin Vulgate], it is probably due to the influence of St Jerome or some previous redactor. Part of it is undoubtedly a borrowing from Ps[Psalm] 31:9. 18-22. Similar recommendations are ascribed to the Angel in all forms of the text. They recommend prayer as a preparation for the marital union, although the three-day period of continence is not found in all. In [verse] 22 Vg[the Latin Vulgate] alone has the counsel, ‘moved rather for love of children than for lust’. This is quite in line with the general context, but the actual expressions used are probably the result of Jerome’s free translation.

Elsewhere (page 393) regarding the Book of Tobit in general, it says:Jerome’s work, produced in his early days as a translator, shows that he rendered his original with considerable freedom. Frequently it is clear that he has translated the sense of a passage rather than its exact literal meaning. In general, it can be said that Tobias [the Book of Tobit] is less carefully done than most of his other work.

 

[cialovesyou]

Nice work Todd!
I was looking for something on it in the commentaries, glad you could find it.

 

[Todd_Easton]

In my earlier reply, I forgot to connect the final dots:

These questionable verses appear in the Douay-Rheims Bible because the Douay-Rheims Bible is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate.

 

[John_Hiner]

In my earlier reply, I forgot to connect the final dots:

These questionable verses appear in the Douay-Rheims Bible because the Douay-Rheims Bible is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate.

The use of the word “questionable” leads to a further concern. Are the verses canonical? Is this the version of the Latin Vulgate to which the Council of Trent refers when the fathers said:

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: . . . **Tobias **[etc.]. . . But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

This question seems different from questions of “textual criticism.”

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Todd_Easton]

The use of the word “questionable” leads to a further concern. Are the verses canonical? Is this the version of the Latin Vulgate to which the Council of Trent refers when the fathers said:

…This question seems different from questions of “textual criticism.”

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

The Fathers of the Council of Trent did not declare the Latin Vulgate of their day to be free from the kinds of errors, such as glosses, that apparantly can be detected by means of textual criticism. Quite the contrary, the Council Fathers themselves requested that a corrected version of the Latin Vulgate be made. See Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu*, *(especially paragraphs 20-22,) promulgated on 30 September 1943, on this subject. See also the article on the “Revision of Vulgate” in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Apparently, through textual criticism, the Tobit verses in question have been determined to be a gloss inserted into the original Bible text by St. Jerome or someone else, as these verses have now been removed from the authorized versions of the Bible, including Pope John Paul II’s Nova Vulgata.

 

[Mintaka]

The Greek-language books of the Septuagint had tons of different versions running around. One of the earliest works of really nitpicky Biblical scholarship was the Hexapla (sp?), in which Origen ran side-by-side comparisons of the text of the Hebrew Bible with various Septuagint versions.

I don’t remember if Tobit’s one of the “Greek” books where they’ve found a Hebrew version in among the Dead Sea Scrolls. I don’t think it was.

So it might have been inserted or it might not, but it sure as heck wasn’t in the other versions. Still, it certainly shows what was in the mind of the Church back then, and for centuries to come.

 

[John_Hiner]

Does anyone have a hardcopy of the Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio? I have found three copies online, and none of them have footnotes. Does the physically published edition have them?

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[GMichuta]

The Greek-language books of the Septuagint had tons of different versions running around. One of the earliest works of really nitpicky Biblical scholarship was the Hexapla (sp?), in which Origen ran side-by-side comparisons of the text of the Hebrew Bible with various Septuagint versions.

I don’t remember if Tobit’s one of the “Greek” books where they’ve found a Hebrew version in among the Dead Sea Scrolls. I don’t think it was.

So it might have been inserted or it might not, but it sure as heck wasn’t in the other versions. Still, it certainly shows what was in the mind of the Church back then, and for centuries to come.

Just for the record. There were five fragments of Tobit found in Qumran (4Q196 - 4Q200). Four in Aramaic and one in Hebrew.

 

[John_Hiner]

Just for the record. There were five fragments of Tobit found in Qumran (4Q196 - 4Q200). Four in Aramaic and one in Hebrew.

This makes me think that the Aramaic copy from which St. Jerome worked might be the best version. Does anyone know why the critics are opting for the shorter versions of Tobias 6 rather than using St. Jerome’s version?

Pax.

John Hiner