Line from the Odyssey in Tobias?

[Dolezal]

Touchstone Magazine, The Wide World of Tobit:The resemblance of Tobit to the Odyssey in particular was not lost on that great student of literature, Jerome, as is evident in a single detail of his Latin translation of Tobit in the Vulgate. Intrigued by the literary merit of Tobit, but rejecting its canonicity, the jocose and sometimes prankish Jerome felt free to insert into his version an item straight out of the Odyssey—namely, the wagging of the dog’s tail on arriving home with Tobias in 11:9—Tunc praecucurrit canis, qui simul fuerat in via, et quasi nuntius adveniens blandimento suae caudae gaudebat—“Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if it had brought the news, showed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail.”16 No other ancient version of Tobit mentions either the tail or the wagging, but Jerome, ever the classicist, was confident his readers would remember the faithful but feeble old hound Argus, as the final act of his life, greeting the return of Odysseus to the home of his father: “he endeavored to wag his tail” (Odyssey 17.302). And to think that we owe this delightful gem to Jerome’s rejection of Tobit’s canonicity!

I have to admit, it reminded me of Homer before I read this article. It seems more than mere parallel because we have motivation. Still, would St. Jerome really have inserted a line of the Odyssey into his translation of Tobias? Regardless of St. Jerome’s opinion, the majority of the Church accepted the deuterocanon, and Jerome submitted himself to the Church’s judgment. For example, concerning another matter he disagreed with, he said: “The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?” What do you guys think? What’s the opinion of people who have studied St. Jerome?

Tobias 11:9: “Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail.”

Odyssey 17: “As soon as he saw Ulysses standing there, he dropped his ears and wagged his tail, but he could not get close up to his master.”

 

[cornbread_r2]

Author and Bible scholar Dennis MacDonald goes much further than that in seeing parallels with Homer and the Odyssey.

In this groundbreaking book, Dennis R. MacDonald offers an entirely new view of the New Testament gospel of Mark. The author of the earliest gospel was not writing history, nor was he merely recording tradition, MacDonald argues. Close reading and careful analysis show that Mark borrowed extensively from the Odyssey and the Iliad and that he wanted his readers to recognize the Homeric antecedents in Mark’s story of Jesus. Mark was composing a prose anti-epic, MacDonald says, presenting Jesus as a suffering hero modeled after but far superior to traditional Greek heroes.

 

[dmar198]

Touchstone Magazine, The Wide World of Tobit:The resemblance of Tobit to the Odyssey in particular was not lost on that great student of literature, Jerome, as is evident in a single detail of his Latin translation of Tobit in the Vulgate. Intrigued by the literary merit of Tobit, but rejecting its canonicity, the jocose and sometimes prankish Jerome felt free to insert into his version an item straight out of the Odyssey—namely, the wagging of the dog’s tail on arriving home with Tobias in 11:9—Tunc praecucurrit canis, qui simul fuerat in via, et quasi nuntius adveniens blandimento suae caudae gaudebat—“Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if it had brought the news, showed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail.”16 No other ancient version of Tobit mentions either the tail or the wagging, but Jerome, ever the classicist, was confident his readers would remember the faithful but feeble old hound Argus, as the final act of his life, greeting the return of Odysseus to the home of his father: “he endeavored to wag his tail” (Odyssey 17.302). And to think that we owe this delightful gem to Jerome’s rejection of Tobit’s canonicity!

I have to admit, it reminded me of Homer before I read this article. It seems more than mere parallel because we have motivation. Still, would St. Jerome really have inserted a line of the Odyssey into his translation of Tobias? Regardless of St. Jerome’s opinion, the majority of the Church accepted the deuterocanon, and Jerome submitted himself to the Church’s judgment. For example, concerning another matter he disagreed with, he said: “The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?” What do you guys think? What’s the opinion of people who have studied St. Jerome?

Tobias 11:9: “Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail.”

Odyssey 17: “As soon as he saw Ulysses standing there, he dropped his ears and wagged his tail, but he could not get close up to his master.”

A single line does not seem like enough objective evidence to draw that kind of conclusion. And the magazine uses equally tiny subjective evidence when it infers that Jerome wouldn’t mind adding to Tobit from the “fact” that he didn’t view it as canonical. In fact if you read his prologue to the book of Tobit he says that although the Jews rebuked him for translating it, he preferred “to judge the opinion of the Pharisees as displeasing and to be subject to the commands of bishops.” It seems to me that he submitted himself to the Church’s decision regarding Tobit as well as Daniel, and the other Deuterocanonicals as well. This shows up especially clear in his prologue to Judith, where he explicitly says that he thinks it is well to translate it for the bishops because the Council of Nicaea accepted it as canonical: “But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request… Receive the widow Judith…she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity”.

 

[Dolezal]

Author and Bible scholar Dennis MacDonald goes much further than that in seeing parallels with Homer and the Odyssey.

In this groundbreaking book, Dennis R. MacDonald offers an entirely new view of the New Testament gospel of Mark. The author of the earliest gospel was not writing history, nor was he merely recording tradition, MacDonald argues. Close reading and careful analysis show that Mark borrowed extensively from the Odyssey and the Iliad and that he wanted his readers to recognize the Homeric antecedents in Mark’s story of Jesus. Mark was composing a prose anti-epic, MacDonald says, presenting Jesus as a suffering hero modeled after but far superior to traditional Greek heroes.

Thanks for the suggestion. I haven’t read the book, but I’m not much inclined to buy it since its analysis is (and can only be) based on parallels alone. From this and from the reviews, I get the feeling I would not agree with the author’s line of reasoning (post hoc ergo proper hoc).

One of the things though, I have always admired in Catholicism, is its incorporation of Greek philosophy, and pagan art and architecture, preserving all that which is good and noble from our pagan past, and yet it remains doctrinally completely independent of such influences.

 

[Dolezal]

A single line does not seem like enough objective evidence to draw that kind of conclusion. And the magazine uses equally tiny subjective evidence when it infers that Jerome wouldn’t mind adding to Tobit from the “fact” that he didn’t view it as canonical. In fact if you read his prologue to the book of Tobit he says that although the Jews rebuked him for translating it, he preferred “to judge the opinion of the Pharisees as displeasing and to be subject to the commands of bishops.” It seems to me that he submitted himself to the Church’s decision regarding Tobit as well as Daniel, and the other Deuterocanonicals as well. This shows up especially clear in his prologue to Judith, where he explicitly says that he thinks it is well to translate it for the bishops because the Council of Nicaea accepted it as canonical: “But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request… Receive the widow Judith…she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity”.

Interesting. I’m inclined to agree with you. The parallel is there, and St. Jerome seems to have been vocal about his opinion, but it sure does not seem fitting that he would insert such a passage in a book deemed canonical by most of the Church.

 

[po18guy]

Language follows patterns, as does animal behavior. Sheesh! Actually, it sounds like a slap at the Magisterium by attempting to make Tobit, if not the entire Deuterocanon, into a whimsical farce.

And, Jerome was bad-tempered, the extreme opposite of the jocular humorist. Do none of these doubting folks think that anyone else read the translation before it was accepted? Does no one else own a dog?

 

[cornbread_r2]

Thanks for the suggestion. I haven’t read the book, but I’m not much inclined to buy it since its analysis is (and can only be) based on parallels alone. From this and from the reviews, I get the feeling I would not agree with the author’s line of reasoning (post hoc ergo proper hoc).

One of the things though, I have always admired in Catholicism, is its incorporation of Greek philosophy, and pagan art and architecture, preserving all that which is good and noble from our pagan past, and yet it remains doctrinally completely independent of such influences.

Here’s a lengthy review of MacDonald’s book by Richard Carrier that you may not have seen.

 

[po18guy]

Here’s a lengthy review of MacDonald’s book by Richard Carrier that you may not have seen.

Do you actually believe his assertions?

 

[Dolezal]

Here’s a lengthy review of MacDonald’s book by Richard Carrier that you may not have seen.

Ah, Richard Carrier. Have you read his “Why I am an Atheist” (I think that was the title) published in the 1990’s? I hope he has evolved his views, because he completely misunderstood and misrepresented our definition of God. As a former atheist I made the same logical mistakes though. Nonetheless, I will read his review.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Do you actually believe his assertions?

Which assertions would those be?

 

[cornbread_r2]

Ah, Richard Carrier. Have you read his “Why I am an Atheist” (I think that was the title) published in the 1990’s? I hope he has evolved his views, because he completely misunderstood and misrepresented our definition of God. As a former atheist I made the same logical mistakes though. Nonetheless, I will read his review.

I don’t think I have.

If you watch EWTN long enough, you’ll eventually hear some host or guest claim that, of course ha ha, no one believes that God is an old man with a white beard floating on a cloud – to be followed up by a show offering for purchase various religious objects including pictures of God portrayed as an old man with a white beard and floating on a cloud. If there is a definitive Catholic definition of God, why aren’t Catholic theologians unemployed?

 

[po18guy]

Which assertions would those be?

Ok, the premise of the book. Just wondering, since you linked from the rather effusive promotional paragraph rather than simply to the Amazon page. I am suspicious by nature. Could be a simple mistake, or could be an agenda.

This may sound harsh, but lately when I hear “scripture scholar” or “bible scholar”, I default to “idiot” and place the burden on them to prove otherwise. There are so many harebrained ideas floating around out there that it has become ridiculous, in the classic sense of the word.

I mean, using LexisNexis, it can be asserted that nursery rhymes may have the same source as US Department of Defense documents, or the NAMBLA newsletter. It’s all what one wants to believe.

Here’s my suspicion: “Someone” posting in this thread provides claimed evidence that Mark is ripped off from Homer. There is a current suspicion that rest of the Gospels are derived from from Mark. Thus, the Gospels in toto are simply a big theological copyright infringement, and are fictional in nature.

Might you be an atheist?

 

[cornbread_r2]

Ok, the premise of the book. Just wondering, since you linked from the promotional paragraph rather than simply to the Amazon page.

This may sound harsh, but lately when I hear “scripture scholar” or “bible scholar”, I default to “idiot” and place the burden on them to prove otherwise. There are so many harebrained ideas floating around out there that it has become ridiculous, in the classic sense of the word.

Are you atheist?

From what I know of it, his argument seems plausible given the supporting evidence.

There’s no denying that Bible scholarship was certainly a lot more tidy when opinion that dissented from official church teaching was prosecuted as heresy.

Yup

 

[po18guy]

There’s no denying that Bible scholarship was certainly a lot more tidy when opinion that dissented from official church teaching was prosecuted as heresy.

Yup

So, in your view, should the Church have held parties for dissenters? What is a belief system about anyway? diverrrrrrrrsity?

Ok, in the interest of full disclosure, you would tend to support whatever undermines the Christian faith. I see it, I just hope that you do, that’s all.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Ok, the premise of the book. Just wondering, since you linked from the rather effusive promotional paragraph rather than simply to the Amazon page. I am suspicious by nature. Could be a simple mistake, or could be an agenda.

I included that quote to give readers here an idea of what the book was about. Simple as that.

…]

Here’s my suspicion: “Someone” posting in this thread provides claimed evidence that Mark is ripped off from Homer. There is a current suspicion that rest of the Gospels are derived from from Mark. Thus, the Gospels in toto are simply a big theological copyright infringement, and are fictional in nature.

…]

To be precise, as I understand it, MacDonald’s premise is that the Homeric epics served as a template for Mark’s gospel.

I can’t prevent you from assigning whatever motives you’d like for my contribution here, but MacDonald’s book was certainly on topic. (Funnily enough, I was actually patting myself on the back for being topical for a change.)

 

[po18guy]

I included that quote to give readers here an idea of what the book was about. Simple as that.

Fair enough. Those of us who play constant defense sometimes become a little war weary.

To be precise, as I understand it, MacDonald’s premise is that the Homeric epics served as a template for Mark’s gospel.

Strange that, for 2,000 years, no one else really noticed? Or, was Homer a prophet?

I can’t prevent you from assigning whatever motives you’d like for my contribution here, but MacDonald’s book was certainly on topic. (Funnily enough, I was actually patting myself on the back for being topical for a change.)

Kudos to you for that!

 

[cornbread_r2]

So, in your view, should the Church have held parties for dissenters? What is a belief system about anyway? diverrrrrrrrsity?

Anything short of burning dissenters at the stake might have been a nice touch for a religion based on love.

Ok, in the interest of full disclosure, you would tend to support whatever undermines the Christian faith. I see it, I just hope that you do, that’s all.

I can’t deny it. If someone proposed that Christianity was started by visitors from the planet Gorcon, I’d jump right on that bandwagon because that’s the way I roll.

It’s only to your rhetorical advantage to ignore the fact that Christian scholars contribute many of the ideas you’d likely find abhorrent.

 

[po18guy]

Anything short of burning dissenters at the stake might have been a nice touch for a religion based on love.

Now now! It was the civil authorities that did that, and neither you nor I are any better than them. We do not know those times - only through the revision of historians.

I can’t deny it. If someone proposed that Christianity was started by visitors from the planet Gorcon, I’d jump right on that bandwagon because that’s the way I roll.

The truth is even more amazing than that. Truthfully, you should look beyond the failed humans in the faith and delve more into what is actually taught. You will be in good company.

It’s only to your rhetorical advantage to ignore the fact that Christian scholars contribute many of the ideas you’d likely find abhorrent.

This begs the question: are they truly Christian? The name is thrown around as much as the phrase “ya know?”, umm…ya know?

 

[cornbread_r2]

Now now! It was the civil authorities that did that, and neither you nor I are any better than them. We do not know those times - only through the revision of historians.

The church conducted the tribunals and issued the death sentences. I can’t speak for you, but I can’t imagine any circumstances that would lead me to tie someone to a piece of wood and slowly burn them to death.

…]

This begs the question: are they truly Christian? The name is thrown around as much as the phrase “ya know?”, umm…ya know?

Three scholars I have in mind were ordained Catholic priests, so I’m thinking they really were Christians.

 

[po18guy]

The church conducted the tribunals and issued the death sentences. I can’t speak for you, but I can’t imagine any circumstances that would lead me to tie someone to a piece of wood and slowly burn them to death.

So, if I can find an atheist anywhere in the world, at any time in history, who did something horrible, will you renounce atheism? Didn’t think so.

Three scholars I have in mind were ordained Catholic priests, so I’m thinking they really were Christians.

Well, until we know what you are thinking we will simply puzzle over this. Is there even the slightest chance, a glimmer of hope that you misunderstand?