Book of Tobit

[McCartney]

Why is there magic in the book of Tobit?

 

[Faith1960]

Why is there magic in the book of Tobit?

I belonged to a Bible study that I think I’m going to return to. We are going to start studying Tobit after Christmas.

 

[McCartney]

I belonged to a Bible study that I think I’m going to return to. We are going to start studying Tobit after Christmas.

Good. I would like to know the answer.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Care to provide any examples?

There is no “magic” in the book of Tobit in the sense of invoking spirits/demons.

Archangel Raphael tells Tobias to burn parts of a fish to exorcise Sarah from the demon Azmodeus and to heal his father’s blindness. However it is not magic but simply God healing people through physical means–in short, a sacramental prayer to God. This is similar to when Jesus heals a blind man by spitting in dirt and putting the mud on the man’s eyes. It is really silly to say there is magic in the book of Tobit as God heals through His creation and this is just one example of sacramental life.

 

[cjforJesus]

Care to provide any examples?

There is no “magic” in the book of Tobit in the sense of invoking spirits/demons.

Archangel Raphael tells Tobias to burn parts of a fish to exorcise Sarah from the demon Azmodeus and to heal his father’s blindness. However it is not magic but simply God healing people through physical means–in short, a sacramental prayer to God. This is similar to when Jesus heals a blind man by spitting in dirt and putting the mud on the man’s eyes. It is really silly to say there is magic in the book of Tobit as God heals through His creation and this is just one example of sacramental life.

Very good answer.
Might I also point out Moses raising the serpent on a pole to cure those who were bitten by poisonous snakes.
There are examples throughout the OT and New Testament of what some claim to be “magic”.
The Pharisees erronoeously claimed Jesus was using sorcery(invoking demons) to cast out demons!

 

[Vico]

Why is there magic in the book of Tobit?

No magic. There was the use of fish entrails per the instructions of the angel Raphael. In Chapter 8:3, the demon was “bound up by the angel”. In Chapter 8:4, the couple offered up prayer to God.

 

[Nelka]

Care to provide any examples?

There is no “magic” in the book of Tobit in the sense of invoking spirits/demons.

Archangel Raphael tells Tobias to burn parts of a fish to exorcise Sarah from the demon Azmodeus and to heal his father’s blindness. However it is not magic but simply God healing people through physical means–in short, a sacramental prayer to God. This is similar to when Jesus heals a blind man by spitting in dirt and putting the mud on the man’s eyes. It is really silly to say there is magic in the book of Tobit as God heals through His creation and this is just one example of sacramental life.

 

[pianistclare]

There are those who would like you to think that Catholicism is full of superstition and magic.

Do not be deceived. The Lord heals. That’s what Rafael’s name means in Hebrew.
GOD HEALS.

 

[peter26]

I understand from a commentary I read that Tobit (along with Judith and Jonah) are not actually historical text but novellas, fiction told to get a message across, like an extended parable.

 

[mattp0625]

I understand from a commentary I read that Tobit (along with Judith and Jonah) are not actually historical text but novellas, fiction told to get a message across, like an extended parable.

Hello,

By any chance, was the commentary written by someone of the Protestant Church? As you may know, Martin Luther removed the books of Tobit and Judith (seven in total) from his bible under his own “authority”. To me, it makes sense that some commentators would view these books as entirely fictional.

As far as Tobit, I do not see why the narrative of Raphael the Archangel would be considered less credible than the narratives of Gabriel or Michael. (I cannot imagine a Catholic commentator would consider Raphael a fictional character).

As far as Jonah, the context of the “belly of the whale” narrative has been debated for centuries as either historical text or parable. Either way, I am not certain that means all events in the book are fiction.

 

[Todd977]

Very good answer.
Might I also point out Moses raising the serpent on a pole to cure those who were bitten by poisonous snakes.
There are examples throughout the OT and New Testament of what some claim to be “magic”.
The Pharisees erronoeously claimed Jesus was using sorcery(invoking demons) to cast out demons!

An OT example…
At the direction of the prophet Elijah, Naaman washed seven times in the Jordan River to cure his leprosy. (2 Kings 5:1-19)

 

[peter26]

Hello,

By any chance, was the commentary written by someone of the Protestant Church? As you may know, Martin Luther removed the books of Tobit and Judith (seven in total) from his bible under his own “authority”. To me, it makes sense that some commentators would view these books as entirely fictional.

As far as Tobit, I do not see why the narrative of Raphael the Archangel would be considered less credible than the narratives of Gabriel or Michael. (I cannot imagine a Catholic commentator would consider Raphael a fictional character).

As far as Jonah, the context of the “belly of the whale” narrative has been debated for centuries as either historical text or parable. Either way, I am not certain that means all events in the book are fiction.

No, it was this one. Found it in a book shop, not the best one as it happened, but I don’t know if this comment is true or not. The book does have an imprimatur.

 

[JerryZ]

Did not Jesus directly speak of Jonah and the whale?

Matthew Chapter 12
“Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” 12:39 And answering, he said to them: “An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign. But a sign will not be given to it, except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 12:40 For just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall arise in judgement with this generation, and they shall condemn it. For, at the preaching of Jonah, they repented. And behold, there is a greater than Jonah here.

Just saying…

 

[mattp0625]

No, it was this one. Found it in a book shop, not the best one as it happened, but I don’t know if this comment is true or not. The book does have an imprimatur.

The catechism (CCC 335) indicates the Church joins with angels to adore the Trinity and celebrates the memory of certain angels, naming Saint Raphael and the others.

(for Protestants and nondenominationals who may be viewing, this does not mean worship)

I am not certain whether or not the commentator is calling all content within Tobit fictional, but it is the only part of scripture that mentions Raphael.

 

[mattp0625]

To clarify - we join with the angels to adore God, the angels are respected and given due reverence. This does not mean the Catholic Church worships them or puts them above Jesus or God.

 

[SyCarl]

The problem that I have with the Book of Tobit is not with whether burning the fish parts is magic. It is that Raphael lies about who he is saying that he is a relative of Tobit. I cannot see how an angel sent by God could lie and therefore do not see how the book can be part of Scripture.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

The problem that I have with the Book of Tobit is not with whether burning the fish parts is magic. It is that Raphael lies about who he is saying that he is a relative of Tobit. I cannot see how an angel sent by God could lie and therefore do not see how the book can be part of Scripture.

"Let’s take the problem of alleged “factual errors” first. The Church teaches that to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must have in mind what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion.

For example, when Jesus begins the parable of the Prodigal Son saying, “There was once a man with two sons,” He is not shown to be a bad historian when it is proven that the man with two sons He describes didn’t actually exist. So too, when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the “rich man” who stole a “poor man’s” ewe lamb and slaughtered it, Nathan is not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or identify the two men in his story. In strict fact, there was no ewe lamb, no theft, and no rich and poor men. These details were used in a metaphor to rebuke King David for his adultery with Bathsheba. We know what Nathan was trying to say and the way he was trying to say it. Likewise, when the Gospels say the women came to the tomb at sunrise, there is no scientific error here. This is not the assertion of the Ptolemiac theory that the sun revolves around the earth. These and other examples which could be given are not “errors” because they’re not truth claims about astronomy or historical events.

Similarly, both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors, not because they’re presenting bad history and erroneous geography, but because they’re first-rate pious stories that don’t pretend to be remotely interested with teaching history or geography, any more than the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are interested in astronomy.

Indeed, the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like “Jack the Giant Killer” or “Aladdin.” Just as one wouldn’t wave a medieval history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins “once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the land,” so Catholics are not reading Tobit and Judith to get a history lesson.

Very well then, but what of the moral and theological “errors”? Judith lies. Raphael gives a false name. So they do. In the case of Judith lying to King Holofernes in order to save her people, we must recall that she was acting in light of Jewish understanding as it had developed until that time. This meant that she saw her deception as acceptable, even laudable, because she was eliminating a deadly foe of her people. By deceiving Holofernes as to her intentions and by asking the Lord to bless this tactic, she was not doing something alien to Jewish Scripture or Old Testament morality. Another biblical example of this type of lying is when the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh about the birth of Moses. They lied and were justified in lying because Pharaoh did not have a right to the truth—if they told the truth, he would have killed Moses. If the book of Judith is to be excluded from the canon on this basis, so must Exodus.

With respect to Raphael, it’s much more dubious that the author intended, or that his audience understood him to mean, “Angels lie. So should you.” On the contrary, Tobit is a classic example of an “entertaining angels unaware” story (cf. Heb. 13:2). We know who Raphael is all along. When Tobit cried out to God for help, God immediately answered him by sending Raphael. But, as is often the case, God’s deliverance was not noticed at first. Raphael introduced himself as “Azariah,” which means “Yahweh helps,” and then rattles off a string of supposed mutual relations, all with names meaning things like “Yahweh is merciful,” “Yahweh gives,” and “Yahweh hears.” By this device, the author is saying (with a nudge and a wink), “Psst, audience. Get it?” And we, of course, do get it, particularly if we’re reading the story in the original Hebrew. Indeed, by using the name “Yahweh helps,” Raphael isn’t so much “lying” about his real name as he is revealing the deepest truth about who God is and why God sent him to Tobit. It’s that truth and not any fluff about history or geography or the fun using an alias that the author of Tobit aims to tell."

• Mark Shea

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The problem that I have with the Book of Tobit is not with whether burning the fish parts is magic. It is that Raphael lies about who he is saying that he is a relative of Tobit. I cannot see how an angel sent by God could lie and therefore do not see how the book can be part of Scripture.

That’s kind of a backwards way of looking at things, don’t you think? We don’t first know what Scripture ought to say, and then accept those only writings that fit our preconceptions. Would you apply the same scrutiny to every book of the Bible? For example, the Book of Hebrews could easily be understood to praise Rahab for her lying. But rather than say, it praises a lie and cannot be inspired Scripture, we should say that it is the word of God and that it therefore cannot be understood as praising her lie, but only praising her act of turning the soldiers away in spite of her lie. We should extend the same courtesy to the book of Tobit.

"Let’s take the problem of alleged “factual errors” first. The Church teaches that to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must have in mind what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion.

For example, when Jesus begins the parable of the Prodigal Son saying, “There was once a man with two sons,” He is not shown to be a bad historian when it is proven that the man with two sons He describes didn’t actually exist. So too, when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the “rich man” who stole a “poor man’s” ewe lamb and slaughtered it, Nathan is not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or identify the two men in his story. In strict fact, there was no ewe lamb, no theft, and no rich and poor men. These details were used in a metaphor to rebuke King David for his adultery with Bathsheba. We know what Nathan was trying to say and the way he was trying to say it. Likewise, when the Gospels say the women came to the tomb at sunrise, there is no scientific error here. This is not the assertion of the Ptolemiac theory that the sun revolves around the earth. These and other examples which could be given are not “errors” because they’re not truth claims about astronomy or historical events.

Similarly, both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors, not because they’re presenting bad history and erroneous geography, but because they’re first-rate pious stories that don’t pretend to be remotely interested with teaching history or geography, any more than the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are interested in astronomy.

Indeed, the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like “Jack the Giant Killer” or “Aladdin.” Just as one wouldn’t wave a medieval history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins “once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the land,” so Catholics are not reading Tobit and Judith to get a history lesson.

Very well then, but what of the moral and theological “errors”? Judith lies. Raphael gives a false name. So they do. In the case of Judith lying to King Holofernes in order to save her people, we must recall that she was acting in light of Jewish understanding as it had developed until that time. This meant that she saw her deception as acceptable, even laudable, because she was eliminating a deadly foe of her people. By deceiving Holofernes as to her intentions and by asking the Lord to bless this tactic, she was not doing something alien to Jewish Scripture or Old Testament morality. Another biblical example of this type of lying is when the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh about the birth of Moses. They lied and were justified in lying because Pharaoh did not have a right to the truth—if they told the truth, he would have killed Moses. If the book of Judith is to be excluded from the canon on this basis, so must Exodus.

With respect to Raphael, it’s much more dubious that the author intended, or that his audience understood him to mean, “Angels lie. So should you.” On the contrary, Tobit is a classic example of an “entertaining angels unaware” story (cf. Heb. 13:2). We know who Raphael is all along. When Tobit cried out to God for help, God immediately answered him by sending Raphael. But, as is often the case, God’s deliverance was not noticed at first. Raphael introduced himself as “Azariah,” which means “Yahweh helps,” and then rattles off a string of supposed mutual relations, all with names meaning things like “Yahweh is merciful,” “Yahweh gives,” and “Yahweh hears.” By this device, the author is saying (with a nudge and a wink), “Psst, audience. Get it?” And we, of course, do get it, particularly if we’re reading the story in the original Hebrew. Indeed, by using the name “Yahweh helps,” Raphael isn’t so much “lying” about his real name as he is revealing the deepest truth about who God is and why God sent him to Tobit. It’s that truth and not any fluff about history or geography or the fun using an alias that the author of Tobit aims to tell."

• Mark Shea

With all respect to Mark Shea, I think that is a very bad explanation. A better one is that Raphael is speaking the language of riddle.

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2012/10/did-st-raphael-lie-when-he-said-i-am.html

 

[SAVINGRACE]

That’s kind of a backwards way of looking at things, don’t you think? We don’t first know what Scripture ought to say, and then accept those only writings that fit our preconceptions. Would you apply the same scrutiny to every book of the Bible? For example, the Book of Hebrews could easily be understood to praise Rahab for her lying. But rather than say, it praises a lie and cannot be inspired Scripture, we should say that it is the word of God and that it therefore cannot be understood as praising her lie, but only praising her act of turning the soldiers away in spite of her lie. We should extend the same courtesy to the book of Tobit.

With all respect to Mark Shea, I think that is a very bad explanation. A better one is that Raphael is speaking the language of riddle.

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2012/10/did-st-raphael-lie-when-he-said-i-am.html

I prefer Mark Shea’s explanation. Not a fan of blogs.

Also asking the reader to understand “broad mental reservations” begs more questions.

The writer also neglects to mention that the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional.

 

[Faith1960]

"Let’s take the problem of alleged “factual errors” first. The Church teaches that to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must have in mind what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion.

For example, when Jesus begins the parable of the Prodigal Son saying, “There was once a man with two sons,” He is not shown to be a bad historian when it is proven that the man with two sons He describes didn’t actually exist. So too, when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the “rich man” who stole a “poor man’s” ewe lamb and slaughtered it, Nathan is not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or identify the two men in his story. In strict fact, there was no ewe lamb, no theft, and no rich and poor men. These details were used in a metaphor to rebuke King David for his adultery with Bathsheba. We know what Nathan was trying to say and the way he was trying to say it. Likewise, when the Gospels say the women came to the tomb at sunrise, there is no scientific error here. This is not the assertion of the Ptolemiac theory that the sun revolves around the earth. These and other examples which could be given are not “errors” because they’re not truth claims about astronomy or historical events.

Similarly, both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors,

Oh no! Gasp, it can’t be!