Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
There’s not a big difference genre-wise between a blog post and a magazine article (like what Shea’s is taken from).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.
The author of Tobit doesn’t go out of his way to make clear that the book is merely fiction. The opinion of Catholic scholarship has traditionally upheld the historicity of the book.
Catholic Encyclopedia:
See also (warning: blog postUntil recently there never was question among Catholics in regard to the historicity of Tobias. It was among the historical books of the Old Testament, the Fathers had always referred to both elder and younger Tobias and to the other personages of the narratives as to facts and not to fancies. The stories of almsgiving, burial of the dead, angelophany, exorcism, marriage of Sara with Tobias the younger, cure of the elder Tobias — all these incidents were taken for granted as fact-narrative; nor was there ever any question of likening them to the tales of “The Arabian Nights” and the “Fables of Æsop.”
taylormarshall.com/2012/03/defending-the-book-of-tobit-as-history.html
The point being not that Tobit has to be regarded as historical, but that it is definitely an acceptable opinion for Catholics to regard it as historical. More on point, whether it is historical or not is really neither here nor there since even in inspired fiction, it would be equally troubling to see an angel (who is not supposed to ever sin) tell a lie, which is always a sin. The only way to really address this is to explain how this is not a lie. After we make it through all the paragraphs about how historical or other factual errors don’t matter because the book is not necessarily historical, Mark Shea’s explanation about the angel lying ends up boiling down to more or less the same thing that was said in the blog article I posted (“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”), so it’s not so much that I disagree with Mark Shea about Raphael, I just think the way he explains it is confusing. The discussion about the historicity of Tobit wasn’t addressing Raphael’s alleged lying, it was to account for alleged errors in history, geography etc. (the argument being that historical errors don’t matter for a book that is not trying to be historical). I think that the NTM article did a better job addressing the question of Raphael specifically.
In sum, I think the basic explanation across all authors tends to the same thing:
Catholic Encyclopedia:
Mark Shea:Raphael told an untruth when he said he was “Azarias the son of the great Ananias” (5:18). There is no untruth in this. The angel was in appearance just what he said he was. Besides, he may have meant by azaryah, “the healer of Jah”; and by ananyah, “the goodness of Jah”. In this event he only told the young Tobias that he was God’s helper and the offspring of the great goodness of God; in this there would be no falsehood.
Haydock: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."
Ver. 18. But lest. Greek Comp., “and Tobit said, brother, I wish to know thy race and thy name. But he replied, I am of the race of Azarias, and of Ananias, who is also thy brother.” Whitaker would have this to be a lie. (Haydock) — But the apparitions of angels are not to be examined by the ordinary rules of life. They take the name of God without scruple, as they acted in his name, Genesis xxxi. 11. (Calmet; Menochius; Tirinus) — Azarias. The angel took the form of Azarias; and therefore might call himself by the name of the man whom he personated. Azarias, in Hebrew, signifies the help of God; and Ananias, the grace of God. (Challoner) — Tobias had not inquired whether he was a man or an angel, as Houbigant answers the objection of Prideaux. (Haydock) — The “help and medicine of God” nearly correspond. (Worthington)