Proving the Historical Accuracy of Tobit (Tobias)

[Padraig_77]

I’m looking for help defending the historical accuracy of the Book of Tobit. I know I’m probably going to get a lot of responses from rather liberal Catholics who don’t believe the Bible has to be historically accurate but, I’m one of those Catholics who does. So, that being said, I’m only looking for responses from people who also believe the same about Scripture.

Here are the particular claims made against the Book of Tobit:

“The writer of Tobit makes Sennacherib the son (1:15), as well as the successor of Enemessar, whereas, according to the Assyrian inscriptions, Sennacherib was the son of Sargon. This is only one of several serious historical difficulties in the narrative of Tobit.”

“In Tobit 14:1, it tells us the man named Tobit died at 112 yrs old. But if you check the details of his birth (recorded in Tobit 1:4-5) to the Captivity … he had to be over 200 years old.”

"Tobit was supposedly alive when Jeroboam staged his revolt in 931 B.C. and was still living at the time of Assyrian captivity (722 B.C.), yet the Book of Tobit says he lived only 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11).

“This tells us that Tobit was a young man when Naphtali broke with the house of Jerusalem. This took place when Jeroboam rebelled and established the Kingdom of Israel. Yet this was more than 200 years before the Assyrian captivity of Israel. So Tobias had lived more than 200 years before the story even started, In the final chapter we are told that Tobit was 58 when he lost his sight. He was in Assyria at that time. He then lived another 100 years to 158. That would mean he actually had to be more than 300 years old.”

“In The Book of Tobit 1:6 Tobit says he went to Jerusalem alone. Then in Chapter 5 verse 13 Tobit is talking to Raphael about the kinship he claimed. Tobit says that others went with him to Jerusalem which contradicts his earlier statement that he alone went.”

One site also claims that the Book of Tobit teaches “magic”:

"Tobit 6:5-7, “Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.”

Is it true that the smoke from a fish’s heart when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God."

 

[passus]

I know I’m probably going to get a lot of responses from rather liberal Catholics who don’t believe the Bible has to be historically accurate but, I’m one of those Catholics who does.

That Catholic would be very ill-informed. The Bible’s fictional parts…don’t* have *to be historical. It’s no fault of the text; it simply that those fictional texts don’t aim to be historical in the first place.

You should check out these tracts.

1. Saving Judith and Tobit
2. Tobit

 

[NotWorthy]

Tobit wasn’t Historical. It was poetry, wasn’t it?

 

[Luke65]

Hey Padraig, I don’t know a lot about this subject, but I am a believer! The Book of Tobit is the Word of God - Rome has spoken! Anyone who can’t see this can’t see it because they have not received the grace of faith in it from God - for whatever reason. Having said that, first of all, the source of these quotes has done a terrible job of presenting his “evidence”. The verses of Tobit he cites often don’t say what he says they say - which makes trying to resolve difficulties even more difficult. So I’ll just explain one issue, for now, and give you some articles for you to read.

“In The Book of Tobit 1:6 Tobit says he went to Jerusalem alone. Then in Chapter 5 verse 13 Tobit is talking to Raphael about the kinship he claimed. Tobit says that others went with him to Jerusalem which contradicts his earlier statement that he alone went.”

Now, don’t tell anybody this but Raphael is actually an angel! An archangel, to be exact. He is not literally Tobit’s “kinsman” - he is his spiritual kinsman, since Tobit is a saint. Now let’s see:

Tobit
Chapter 5
13
5 Raphael answered, “I am Azariah, son of Hananiah the elder, one of your own kinsmen.”
14
Tobit exclaimed: “Welcome! God save you, brother! Do not be provoked with me, brother, for wanting to learn the truth about your family. So it turns out that you are a kinsman, and from a noble and good line! I knew Hananiah and Nathaniah, the two sons of Shemaiah the elder; with me they used to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where we would worship together. No, they did not stray from the right path; your kinsmen are good men. You are certainly of good lineage, and welcome!” (NAB)

Now look at the NAB footnote:

5 [13] (13-14) Azariah, “Yahweh helps”; Hananiah, “Yahweh is merciful”; Nathaniah, “Yahweh gives”; Shemaiah, “Yahweh hears.”

So this is like saying that Jesus will be called “Emmanuel” (Isaiah 7:14) which means “God with us”; so let our separated brethren claim that’s not the Word of God!

Last point: did Tobit realize that Raphael (“Azariah”) was actually an angel? You betcha!

Tobit
Chapter 5
21
Tobit reassured her: “Have no such thought. Our son will leave in good health and come back to us in good health. Your own eyes will see the day when he returns to you safe and sound.
22
7 So, no such thought; do not worry about them, my love. For a good angel will go with him, his journey will be successful, and he will return unharmed.”

newadvent.org/cathen/12640b.htm Raphael
newadvent.org/cathen/14749c.htm Tobit
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9410otg.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307bt.asp

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I guess I’m troubled by your initial post. Why would you want to hear from only those who support your opinion? I would assume truth might be the goal. If the truth is that not all that is in the bible was meant to be historical or is in fact such, why would you wish to ignore that? I’m just confused.

 

[Padraig_77]

I guess I’m troubled by your initial post. Why would you want to hear from only those who support your opinion? I would assume truth might be the goal. If the truth is that not all that is in the bible was meant to be historical or is in fact such, why would you wish to ignore that? I’m just confused.

Why trust the Bible at all if it allegedly contains errors? If it is the Word of God (which I believe it is) why would God allow it to contain errors? I feel that saying “oh, well, these are parables or allegories and weren’t meant to be taken literally” is just a cop-out made by those who want to remain Catholics but conform to modern Darwinian thinking.

I’ve asked similar questions regarding the Book of Judith in the past, when I asked that question on here most of the responses that I got were “it wasn’t meant to be taken literally” and other liberal theological ideas. Eventually, I found the answers to the claims made against the Book of Judith. Obviously, If the answers to claims made against the Book of Judith are out there, the answers to the claims made against the Book of Tobit are also out there.

I’m looking for answers from Catholics who accept the historicity of the entire Bible and those who just “appreciate for it spiritual values”, picking and choosing parts they like and dismissing those they don’t like. I certainly am looking for the truth, that’s why I’m looking for answers from “Conservative” Catholics, rather than “Liberal” Catholics.

 

[passus]

Why trust the Bible at all if it allegedly contains errors? If it is the Word of God (which I believe it is) why would God allow it to contain errors? I feel that saying “oh, well, these are parables or allegories and weren’t meant to be taken literally” is just a cop-out made by those who want to remain Catholics but conform to modern Darwinian thinking.

Your misunderstanding comes in that fiction does not equate to error in any realm of thinking. The Bible professes Truth in all it intends to profess as Truth. If the Bible intends to profess Truth through a piece of fictional work, that doesn’t mean that there is any error there.

Furthermore, you have not arrived at the conclusion that the Bible contains only historical non-fiction by any way of logic or deduction. You have simply branded that understanding of Scripture as “liberal” (I’m not really sure of the connection there) and are now looking for evidence to support the conclusion you have already come to determine. In other terms, you’re working backwards. That’s not the way to Truth. By convoluting your study of Scripture this way, you’re only hindering yourself and your own understanding of what the word contains.

God bless.

 

[Padraig_77]

Your misunderstanding comes in that fiction does not equate to error in any realm of thinking. The Bible professes Truth in all it intends to profess as Truth. If the Bible intends to profess Truth through a piece of fictional work, that doesn’t mean that there is any error there.

Furthermore, you have not arrived at the conclusion that the Bible contains only historical non-fiction by any way of logic or deduction. You have simply branded that understanding of Scripture as “liberal” (I’m not really sure of the connection there) and are now looking for evidence to support the conclusion you have already come to determine. In other terms, you’re working backwards. That’s not the way to Truth. By convoluting your study of Scripture this way, you’re only hindering yourself and your own understanding of what the word contains.

God bless.

The books themselves are written as historical narratives. That is where I am starting off. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia, regarding the book of Judith, states the following:
*“Catholics with very few exceptions accept the book of Judith as a narrative of facts, not as an allegory. Even Jahn considers that the genealogy of Judith is inexplicable on the hypothesis that the story is a mere fiction (“Introductio”, Vienna, 1814, p. 461). Why carry out the genealogy of a fictitious person through fifteen generations? The Fathers have ever looked upon the book as historical. St. Jerome, who excluded Judith from the Canon, nonetheless accepted the person of the valiant woman as historical (Ep. lxv, 1).” - (Source)*These books are not written as parables like those that Christ spoke of in the Gospels, but these books are written has historical narratives.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Padraig,

You should not look for labels but for truth. But if you only trust a conservative set of opinions, then try to get hold of Orchard, Bernard, ed.,* A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture ,* New York etc. Thomas Nelson & Sons [c. 1955], This bears a forward by Bernard Cardinal Griffin. Go to paragraph 301a. You will find there a thorough treatment of this question, and the conclusion is : the book of Tobias seems to have a “historical framework”. It says, among other things :

Whether an appeal to tradition yields the conclusion that the book must be considered strict history in every detail, is questionable. (…) The fact that the Councils of Trent and the Vatican list Tobias among historical books scarcely proves that our book must viewed in the strictest historical sense. (…) The Church has not yet given a definite decision concerning the literary form of the Book of Tobias. However, since traditionally the book has always been considered historical in some way (…) the exegete should consider that at least the substantial framework is historical.

It goes on to say that the onus of proof is on those who do not believe it is historical at all.

This was written over fifty year ago, and I don’t think we are much further today. Why is it important to you that Tobias should be considered real history in the modern sense?

Verbum

 

[Padraig_77]

Hi Padraig,

You should not look for labels but for truth. But if you only trust a conservative set of opinions, then try to get hold of Orchard, Bernard, ed.,* A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture ,* New York etc. Thomas Nelson & Sons [c. 1955], This bears a forward by Bernard Cardinal Griffin. Go to paragraph 301a. You will find there a thorough treatment of this question, and the conclusion is : the book of Tobias seems to have a “historical framework”. It says, among other things :

It goes on to say that the onus of proof is on those who do not believe it is historical at all.

Thanks for that information.

This was written over fifty year ago, and I don’t think we are much further today. Why is it important to you that Tobias should be considered real history in the modern sense?

Verbum

I think it is just as historical as any of the other books of the Bible, i.e. Daniel, Jeremiah, etc.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Why trust the Bible at all if it allegedly contains errors? If it is the Word of God (which I believe it is) why would God allow it to contain errors? I feel that saying “oh, well, these are parables or allegories and weren’t meant to be taken literally” is just a cop-out made by those who want to remain Catholics but conform to modern Darwinian thinking.

I’ve asked similar questions regarding the Book of Judith in the past, when I asked that question on here most of the responses that I got were “it wasn’t meant to be taken literally” and other liberal theological ideas. Eventually, I found the answers to the claims made against the Book of Judith. Obviously, If the answers to claims made against the Book of Judith are out there, the answers to the claims made against the Book of Tobit are also out there.

I’m looking for answers from Catholics who accept the historicity of the entire Bible and those who just “appreciate for it spiritual values”, picking and choosing parts they like and dismissing those they don’t like. I certainly am looking for the truth, that’s why I’m looking for answers from “Conservative” Catholics, rather than “Liberal” Catholics.

Your statement is akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water I think. To suggest that the bible is not literal history but contains common erros doesn’t suggest in any manner that it is unuseful at all. In fact, I’m told by better authorities than myself certainly that this literal fundamentalist idea is rather new and not at all what was believed in more ancient times.

To admit that the bible contains errors of fact is not a cop out. It’s simply acknowledging the truth as believed by those whose lives have been spent in the study of scripture. Parables were aimed at a higher truth, and were structured to be understood by the people of the time. We certainly don’t understand on its face many of the parables until experts explain to us the relative importance of certain facts that to us would be unimportant. I refer you to the woman who searched for her coins. They are not coins as we understand them (money). If they are considered money, then the entire point of the parable is really lost.

You may consider answers to your questions as “liberal” because you CHOOSE not to adhere to them. That does not make them so. And again, I ask, why would you wish to believe what is contrary to the evidence? If anything, we are called upon to speak the TRUTH, not what we would like it to be, but actually what it is. That is the spirit that all investigation should start with it seems to me.

I guess I have always been a bit suspicious of the point of apologetics. While I assume there may be places where putting one’s best foot forward is the desired policy, surely it cannot be the point of a serious desire to know what the writers of the bible meant to convey. Careful, exhaustive, and deep analysis are the only means that can accomplish that and the facts must be admitted, regardless of what they are.

This in no way diminishes God. If he is not the “author” of scripture then nothing has been lost by admitting that. My own position is that which the evidence seems to convey. That each writer was moved to think deeply and long on the subject and wrote what he/she believed to be accurate and a true reflection of the way God interacted with humans and the earth. Whether they were right or not is not nearly as important as the respect owed their sincere efforts. Moreover we are all enhanced to the degree that we consider the theological conclusions of others. They add to our entire corpus of knowledge about God and his kingdom.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Padraig,

You believe that this book is historical in the modern sense yet you ask for proof. How can you reconcile this? If you believe it then YOU should supply the proof.

Verbum

 

[littleone]

Why trust the Bible at all if it allegedly contains errors? If it is the Word of God (which I believe it is) why would God allow it to contain errors?

You know that the Israelites did the same questioniing the word and yet they were given all their needs when coming to the promised land. It took 40 years because of their questioning, and lack of faith.
Jesus told Thomas “blessed are you Thomas because you see and you believe, but more blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe”.
Once again Jesus tells us that His ways are so fare removed from our ways,
And again, the old testement is to be understood in the context of the relationship of God to man in the flesh. Where a representitive was apointed to speak to God and from God to man, we call these people prophets

Where as the new testement is to be understood in the “spirit” not flesh, (although God will relate how when where he chooses).
The “new testement” is a relationship spirit of God to the spirit of God in man. God made man to His own likeness (spirit) we are to read / understand this way to.

Now a lot of the settings in the old testement such as Tobit are writen in the relationship of God to man in the fleshly sence because that is how God related then. If this were not so then why did Jesus tell us that “Do not think that i have come to change the old testement but rather to FULFILL it” To bring the light into how it was supposed to be before the fall of Adam and Eve.

You have to not THINK for God but allow the spirit to enter our heart and teach you, remember how Peter, Judus, Thomas related before the spirit came upon them. Remember Jesus asked the disciples why they were so un understanding of the acts of Jesus. They saw but they didn’t have the open heart, that’s why Jesus became anoide with them.
Open your heart and the spirit will reveil to you and ou will know for the spirit gives to those who ask seeking first the kingdome of God.

Peace
Godlbless.

 

[juliamajor]

Padraig_77;4680681:

Why trust the Bible at all if it allegedly contains errors? If it is the Word of God (which I believe it is) why would God allow it to contain errors?

You know that the Israelites did the same questioniing the word and yet they were given all their needs when coming to the promised land. It took 40 years because of their questioning, and lack of faith.
Jesus told Thomas “blessed are you Thomas because you see and you believe, but more blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe”.
Once again Jesus tells us that His ways are so fare removed from our ways,
And again, the old testement is to be understood in the context of the relationship of God to man in the flesh

. Where a representitive was apointed to speak to God and from God to man, we call these people prophets

Where as the new testament is to be understood in the “spirit” not flesh, (although God will relate how when where he chooses).
The “new testament” is a relationship spirit of God to the spirit of God in man. God made man to His own likeness (spirit) we are to read / understand this way to.

Now a lot of the settings in the old testament such as Tobit are writen in the relationship of God to man in the fleshly sence because that is how God related then. If this were not so then why did Jesus tell us that “Do not think that i have come to change the old testament but rather to FULFILL it” To bring the light into how it was supposed to be before the fall of Adam and Eve.

You have to not THINK for God but allow the spirit to enter our heart and teach you, remember how Peter, Judus, Thomas related before the spirit came upon them. Remember Jesus asked the disciples why they were so un understanding of the acts of Jesus. They saw but they didn’t have the open heart, that’s why Jesus became anoide with them.
Open your heart and the spirit will reveil to you and ou will know for the spirit gives to those who ask seeking first the kingdome of God.

Peace
Godlbless.

nobody is questioning it as a Sacred book.Just what kind of book.many genres in the bible, different styles & different ways of stating truth.Tobit or Judith are most likely extended parables.If Jesus used parables to teach why wouldn’t the Holy Spirit inspire someone to write one?The stories are charming,witty and -they teach reliance on God and complete trust in His ways. think folks that don’t read them or have them in their bibles are really missing out. Narratives ARE NOT THE ONLY FORM OF WRITING IN THE BIBLE!! If people really understood that, there would be a lot less misunderstanding of scripture.Too many argue about incidentals and miss the entire point of a Book. By the way Jesus said nothing about the Old Testament-because it didn’t exist.Jesus mentions “the LAW” the Torah- the first five books of the Bible.The canon of the Prophets was pretty set by then (Nebiim) but the rest of the O.T. The Writings (Kethuvim) was not-hence no Old Testament.

 

[Shin]

Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.

What is the fish symbolic of? What is the heat of the fish symbolic of? There is a spiritual meaning behind these actions, which is why they are put forth – Rather like when Moses held up the bronze serpent for all the Israelites to look upon and be healed.

Are bronze serpents magic? No. Was the fish magical? No.

It was made a holy sacramental, with a spiritual meaning behind its use.

There’s more to this particular example but I’ll let the people who wish to find it seek and find it.

 

[juliamajor]

Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.

What is the fish symbolic of? What is the heat of the fish symbolic of? There is a spiritual meaning behind these actions, which is why they are put forth – Rather like when Moses held up the bronze serpent for all the Israelites to look upon and be healed.

Are bronze serpents magic? No. Was the fish magical? No.

It was made a holy sacramental, with a spiritual meaning behind its use.

There’s more to this particular example but I’ll let the people who wish to find it seek and find it. /Q
Now you talking about the cultural aspect of scripture.There were a lot of ancient remedies that were folk remedies. Using entrails and spit- while being odd and almost magical in our minds- was ordinary for them-and not magical- just the "science " of the time-in this particular cultural setting. Jesus used saliva and dirt , made a poultice and put it on blindmans’ eyes.Why- cause spit was considered to have healing properties.There are several books by Pilch and Neyrey that put gospels in their cultural context. Fascinating. Remedies don’t have as much meaning as the troubles or diseases that are cured.Blindness almost always has an inner meaning.Notice in the Gospels where stories of blindness are-usually usually around where Spiritual blindness of Pharisees or apostles or people are.Deliberately put there?You bet.!

 

[Padraig_77]

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”. Jahn, “Introductio in libros sacros”, 2nd ed. (Vienna, 1814), 452, gives the stock objections to the historicity of Tobias, and suggests that either the entire composition is a parable to teach that the prayers of the upright are heard or at most only the main outline is fact-narrative. His book was put on the Index (26 Aug., 1822). Anton Scholz, “Die heilige Schrift”, II, iii, p. 12, and Movers in “Kirchenlexicon” (first ed., I, p. 481) hold that Tobias is a poetic fiction. Cosquin, in “Revue biblique” (1899, pp. 50-82), tries to show that the sacred writer of Tobias had before his eyes a form of the Ahikhar story and worked it over rather freely as a vehicle to carry the inspired thought of the moral he wished to convey to his readers. Barry, “The Tradition of Scripture” (New York, 1906), p. 128, says: “Its relation to other stories, such as The Grateful Dead and the tale of Ahichar, has been used in illustration of the romantic nature ascribed to it by modern readers; so, too, the symbolical names of its personages, and the borrowings, as they say, from Persian mythology of Asmodeus, etc.” Gigot, “Special introduction to the study of the Old Testament”, I (New York, 1901), 343-7, gives at length the arguments in favour of the non-historical character of the book and attempts no refutation of the same.

With these and a few other exceptions, Catholic exegetes are unanimous in clearly defending the historicity of Tobias. Cf. Welte in “Kirchenlexikon” (first ed., s.v. Tobias); Reusch, “Das Buch Tobias”, p. vi; Vigouroux, “Manuel biblique”, II (Paris, 1883), 134; Cornely, “Introd. in utriusque testamenti libros sacros”, II (Paris, 1887), i, 378; Danko, “Hist. revelationis v.t.”, 369; Haneburg, “Gesch. der bibl. Offenbarung” (3rd ed., Ratisbon, 1863), 489; Kaulen, “Einleitung in die heilige Schrift” (Freiburg, 1890), 215; Zschokke, “Hist. sacra A.T.”, 245; Seisenberger, “Practical Handbook for the Study of the Bible” (New York, 1911), 343. This almost unanimity among Catholic exegetes is quite in keeping with the decision of the Biblical Commission (23 June, 1905). By this Decree Catholics are forbidden to hold that a book of the Holy Writ, which has generally been looked upon as historical, is either entirely or in part not history properly so called, unless it be proven by solid arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to write history; and the solidity of the arguments against the historicity of an historical book of the Bible we are not to admit either readily or rashly. Now the arguments against the historical worth of Tobias are not at all solid; they are mere conjectures, which it would be most rash to admit.

newadvent.org/cathen/14749c.htm

 

[juliamajor]

Actually it’s pretty clear to all but a few that this is not an historical
book. the might have not been solid a hundred years ago but the consensus right now is clear.Does it make it any less effective if it is an extended parable and not a history? what’s the mania about proving every book of the Bible ‘historical’.The insights we have been given from the ancient libraries- the Dead Sea scrolls and archaeological finds were not available at the time of some of the earlier decrees.There’s the rub.

 

[Shin]

“In The Book of Tobit 1:6 Tobit says he went to Jerusalem alone. Then in Chapter 5 verse 13 Tobit is talking to Raphael about the kinship he claimed. Tobit says that others went with him to Jerusalem which contradicts his earlier statement that he alone went.”

Another example of just reading the Bible on this one seeing that he never claimed to ‘always’ go alone but he is telling of his usual habit.

As for the dating, people come up with dates for a variety of events it is up to them to prove them, but often their proofs are simple speculation.

All you have to do is a bit of reading and googling to knock this stuff to pieces.

Actually it’s pretty clear to all but a few

I think you are trying to make that true by the saying of it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m looking for help defending the historical accuracy of the Book of Tobit. I know I’m probably going to get a lot of responses from rather liberal Catholics who don’t believe the Bible has to be historically accurate but, I’m one of those Catholics who does. So, that being said, I’m only looking for responses from people who also believe the same about Scripture.

Here are the particular claims made against the Book of Tobit:
…

One site also claims that the Book of Tobit teaches “magic”:

Are you sure it’s meant to be history & biography ? If it’s a romantic novella, the historical problems evaporate​