Book of Tobit

  • Thread starter Thread starter McCartney
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
There’s not a big difference genre-wise between a blog post and a magazine article (like what Shea’s is taken from).

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:
Until 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.”
See also (warning: blog post ;)):

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:
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.
Mark Shea:
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."
Haydock:
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)
 
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.
Ahh but the Angel did say why what he did was necessary.
In other words he had express command to hide his own identity until it was no longer necessary to hide it.
How would Raphael accomplish his mission had he told them at the onset his real identity?
 
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.
Raphael did not give information that was not required by his interlocutors to be known.

Jesus did exactly the same thing:
Matthew Chapter 16
16:13 Then Jesus went into parts of Caesarea Philippi. And he questioned his disciples, saying, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 16:14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, and others say Elijah, still others say Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 16:15 Jesus said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16:16 Simon Peter responded by saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 16:17 And in response, Jesus said to him: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. 16:18 And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. 16:19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.” 16:20 Then he instructed his disciples that they should tell no one that he is Jesus the Christ.
Yes I know Luther did not like Matthew too much but…
Mark Chapter 8
8:27 And Jesus departed with his disciples into the towns of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way, he questioned his disciples, saying to them, “Who do men say that I am?” 8:28 And they answered him by saying: “John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others perhaps one of the prophets.” 8:29 Then he said to them, “Yet truly, who do you say that I am?” Peter responded by saying to him, “You are the Christ.” 8:30 And he admonished them, not to tell anyone about him.
And what about Luke
Luke Chapter 9
9:20 Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” In response, Simon Peter said, “The Christ of God.” 9:21 But speaking sharply to them, he instructed them not to tell this to anyone
So Jesus commanded HIS Disciples to lie to the people about HIS true nature!
Perhaps it was not something the rest of the Israelites needed to know. GOD chooses whom HE pleases to disclose what and since HE is GOD he has the authority.

 
Jerry, that’s not what most people mean by lying. Lying is deliberately speaking a falsehood with the intention to deceive others.

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

To say that Jesus commanded his disciples to lie is not only wrong, but it would be saying that Jesus commanded his disciples to sin, which is obviously false.
 
Here’s the Latin Vulgate version of Tobit 12:7, as translated by St. Jerome:
“Etenim sacramentum regis abscondere bonum est, opera autem Dei revelare et confiteri honorificum est.”
“For it is good to hide the mystery sacramentum] of a king, and it is honorable to reveal and confess the works of God.”
This quote is a pretty important one in medieval discussions of sacramental theology, and why most of the Sacraments include visible signs of hidden things God is doing within us. So yeah, it’s not about the angel lying.

Here’s the extended version of what Raph said in the Vulgate. You will see that Jerome indicates that Raphael is not lying, and is instead being kinda cutesy and riddling.
Then Tobias going forth, found a beautiful young man standing, belted up, and as if ready for travel. And not knowing that he was an angel of God, he greeted him, and said: “Where have you come from, good youth?”
Tunc egressus Tobias, invenit juvenem splendidum, stantem praecinctum, et quasi paratum ad ambulandum.Et ignorans quod angelus Dei esset, salutavit eum, et dixit: Unde te habemus, bone juvenis?
While he answered, “From the children of Israel.”
At ille respondit: Ex filiis Israel.
[And yeah, angels would generally be hanging around God’s people, the children of Israel…]
And Tobias said to him, “Do you know the way that goes to the country of the Medes?”
Et Tobias dixit ei: Nosti viam, quae ducit in regionem Medorum?
He answered him, “I know it, and I have often walked all the roads; and I have stayed with our brother Gabelus, who remains at Rages, a city of the Medes which is situated on the mountain of Ecbatana.”
Cui respondit: Novi: et omnia itinera ejus frequenter ambulavi, et mansi apud Gabelum fratrem nostrum: qui moratur in Rages civitate Medorum, quae posita est in monte Ecbatanis.
[And again, Raphael has been among the Medes as an angel, and has stayed in Rages doing work as an angel. He’s not lying!]
"And Tobias said to him, “I ask you to reveal to me - from what house or what tribe are you?”
Cui Tobias respondit: Rogo te, indica mihi de qua domo, aut de qua tribu es tu.
And Raphael the angel said, “Do you want a hired man’s origin genus, also meaning “family” or “kind, sort”], or do you want that hired man to go with your son? But so that I not make you perhaps worry, I am Azarias, a son of the great Ananias.”
Cui Raphael angelus dixit, Genus quaeris mercenarii, an ipsum mercenarium, qui cum filio tuo eat? Sed ne forte sollicitum te reddam, ego sum Azarias Ananiae magni filius.
Literally, “I am YHWH’s help, a son of God’s great grace.”
And Tobias answered: “You come from a great origin.”
Et Tobias respondit: Ex magno genere es tu.
And Tobiah isn’t wrong about that! Angels do have a great origin!

Another funny bit:
"And Tobias answering, said [to Raphael], “May you have a good journey, and may God be with you on your way, and may his angel accompany you.”
That’s part of the point. Apparently, people often wished that God’s angel would be with their loved ones on their journeys. What if God’s angel were a visible travel companion? Tobit and Tobiah, and Tobit’s mom (who is comforted by Tobiah’s belief that an angel is accompanying his son, albeit not guessing that they were literally right about that), find out exactly what would happen!

As for calling yourself a son of someone, or calling someone else a brother - well, welcome to Hebrew. The angels were sometimes called sons of God, just as Seth’s descendants were called sons of God. It was totally okay to call pretty much anybody your brother, if they were known to you. They didn’t have to be blood relations.

There are similar customs in many countries of the world. In Japan, as in many European countries, you can politely but informally address any older man as “Older Brother,” “Uncle” or “Grandfather,” and any older woman as “Big Sister,” “Auntie,” or “Grandmother.” You can address any younger person as “Little Brother” or “Little Sister”. In Japan, you can even refer to people you don’t know as “that uncle” or “that big sister over there.” This used to be the custom in English, too! Young men would politely address old ladies whom they didn’t know as “Mother” or “Granny.”

Speaking a language correctly but misleadingly is not lying. It is a joke, and an extended one, but it all turns out well for Tobiah’s family. It’s a surprise and a deceptive game, but it’s not false witness. It’s clever talking, that’s all.

On the same principle that everything has to be revealed explicitly, you could never even have angels taking on visible forms that aren’t their own, because the truth about angels is that they are spirits without any visible form. If an angel’s disguise isn’t a lie, then an angel disguising his thoughts, his mission, and the meaning of his ambiguous words isn’t necessarily a lie, either. There’s a big pattern in the whole Bible, and in the whole of salvation history, of God doing something first and revealing its significance later. Both the existence of a mystery, and the revelation of its meaning, are important for our understanding of just what God is doing. He wants us to think about this stuff carefully.
 
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.
But if it’s Scripture, you have to accept it as the Word of God.

You don’t get to read something, and then decide if it’s Scripture if it conforms to your theology.

For isn’t it your position that your theology comes from Scripture?

That would be like saying, “I know that men can’t walk on water, so any text that depicts men walking on water must not be inspired!”

Rather, what you as a Christian say is: “The text that describes a man walking on water is inspired, therefore I believe that a man did walk on water.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top