Proving the Historical Accuracy of Tobit (Tobias)

[Leonius]

Whether Tobit is historically accurate or not is irrelevant, the only question you need to ask about Tobit is: “What is God revealing to us?”

Given that most of the events in Tobit only involve one person and the book of Tobit is that one persons account your not going to be able to find anything else to back it up, so you either take the book of Tobit as historical or you don’t. That’s why they call it Faith.

 

[juliamajor]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Church says that in order to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must believe that it is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Whether or not the events in Tobit actually took place exactly as they are laid out is irrelevent *only if * the Church allows for the possibility that the book is not a historical record. And the Church does allow for that possibility. The Bible is not a history textbook and it’s wrong to treat it as such. Normal rules of historical/literary criticism do not apply.

But why even turn this into a debate? Does it really matter if it’s history or allegory? What matters is that we must consider what it teaches us to be the inspired Word of God, as if God Himself came down and spoke it to us. Which, in a way, He has.

Any conflicts over historical fact won’t-- can’t– affect the inerrency of the books. And in my experience, obsessively focusing on the historical accuracy or lack thereof is not only missing the point by a wide mark but can also be damaging to one’s faith.

/soapbox

I agree wholeheartedly! I Pledge I will no longer debate this subject on this particular thread-"I will Post no more Forever!"on this thread at least! Goodbye-and God Bless and Keep all on this thread.!

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Roman Army could do 50 miles a day on forced march even with full gear!

Yes, but they were looking forward, marching…not speaking with people and making sure to go where people would be congregating. Can you just imagine the questions that he had to answer over and over again to the people he came into contact with?

How many times did he have to retell the story? Did he have to explain what evil they were doing?
Did he have to debate it with people?

And he was alone in this walk. It is difficult to argue against many when you are alone. I know this. for even though there is no doubt that what I have been trying to explain to you is the truth, it has been hard until others came on board to support that same truth.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Where did I say this?

You say that it doesn’t have to be historically accurate, or a factual story. If you are not saying that, then what is your point?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I’m glad too.

I just wish Luke would answer the question that a number of people have asked.

Such as?

 

[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”:

There a historical bits & pieces in book - that does not mean the book is itself to be taken as history. To defend a book as what is not is to make needles problems: for oneself, & for others. That the books is not believed to be a history, does not in the slightest imply disbelief in anything taught by the Church: the book can be non-historical, yet true & inspired: it will merely lack the type of truth proper to historical facts. To say it is historical, if it is not historical, is no different morally from sayong it is not true as history if in fact it is.​

As for the magic: what a character says, is not necessarily teaching: speeches have a lot of functions, & it does not follow that because a book contains something that can be used as teaching, that that is function of every word in it. The Bible contains all sorts of lies & blasphemies & untruths: it does not follow that it is intended to be a lie. Is “There is no god” really performing the same function as “God is Love” ? So there is no reason at all why the texts should not include all manner of superstitions & abominations; recording something is not the same as teaching it. If it were the same thing, the perjury of Peter, the suicide of Ahithophel, the incest of Lot, the adultery, lust & murder comitted by David, the incest & rape committed by Amnon, the rebellion of Absalom, the superstition of Saul, the savagery of Saul the persecutor, the ambition of James & John, would all be enjoined as worthy of our imitation, when it is obvious that they are not.

Many “Bible difficulties” would disappear, if only the books were read with the same literary discrimination as any other.

 

[donalddon5]

There a historical bits & pieces in book - that does not mean the book is itself to be taken as history. To defend a book as what is not is to make needles problems: for oneself, & for others. That the books is not believed to be a history, does not in the slightest imply disbelief in anything taught by the Church: the book can be non-historical, yet true & inspired: it will merely lack the type of truth proper to historical facts. To say it is historical, if it is not historical, is no different morally from sayong it is not true as history if in fact it is.​

As for the magic: what a character says, is not necessarily teaching: speeches have a lot of functions, & it does not follow that because a book contains something that can be used as teaching, that that is function of every word in it. The Bible contains all sorts of lies & blasphemies & untruths: it does not follow that it is intended to be a lie. Is “There is no god” really performing the same function as “God is Love” ? So there is no reason at all why the texts should not include all manner of superstitions & abominations; recording something is not the same as teaching it. If it were the same thing, the perjury of Peter, the suicide of Ahithophel, the incest of Lot, the adultery, lust & murder comitted by David, the incest & rape committed by Amnon, the rebellion of Absalom, the superstition of Saul, the savagery of Saul the persecutor, the ambition of James & John, would all be enjoined as worthy of our imitation, when it is obvious that they are not.

Many “Bible difficulties” would disappear, if only the books were read with the same literary discrimination as any other.

I enjoy your reply and like to also say something on the magic part without taking anything from what you said.

Some times mystical things do happen and this is well document throughout the history of the Church(Roman Catholic). They are also very frequent in the life of Jesus on Earth…slipping through crowds unnoticed even when the crowd was angry and wanted to hurt him, ability to know what someone is thinking, the many miracles, and much more that is not documented. The perfect life where everything in the Old Covenant is identical to the New Covenant. Examples are very many. My point is that these mystical things are commonly not comprehend by Non-Catholics or even some Catholics as I have found out the hard way. So these people relate to them with what they know instead of searching out the truth. Example here would be someone relating Saint Joan of the Arc hearing voices in her head with modern day psychologist teaching about someone like the Son of Sam or like once when I was trying to explain my experience about receiving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit the person rudely ask what else did the little man in the space ship say to you. This can go on and on with endless examples. Because of my few experiences which the Lord bless me with or I can for sure say his Mother did, I have no problem believing the book of Tobit, so in fact to me it is very much historical in the sense it really did happen. Others believe because it is in the bible and indeed that is counted as credit to them. But for others who must compare it to magic, I can only say keep well away from them, they are truly the ones who God will not allow to see for they mock the work of the Holy Spirit. These mystical experiences do not occur by mans own power but by the power of the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son. Do not go against it.

Sorry so long, I have difficulty expressing myself. Good Questions.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Notworthy, I am trying to do the research. Will you please quote chapter and verse of what you question in both the books of Tobias and Judith. This will help me in the research.

I pray that the Holy Spirit guide us, and give us ears to hear Him.

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy, I am trying to do the research. Will you please quote chapter and verse of what you question in both the books of Tobias and Judith. This will help me in the research.

I pray that the Holy Spirit guide us, and give us ears to hear Him.

Oh goodness. Now, you’re going to make me back up what I said? That’s not fair!!!:tsktsk:

Seriously, yes, I"ll see if I can find it tonight or maybe in the morning.

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy, I am trying to do the research. Will you please quote chapter and verse of what you question in both the books of Tobias and Judith. This will help me in the research.

I pray that the Holy Spirit guide us, and give us ears to hear Him.

OK, ask and you shall receive!

According to the Navarre Study Bible regarding Tobit:

If at first sight, Tobit seems to be a history, it is not history in the proper sense of the word. It is in fact closer to a “moralistic” novel: it could be categorized as a “sapiential narrative”. Although the author sets his story in the time when the Israelites were captizve in Assyria and Media (8th - 7th centuries BC), one can see that he is writing much later, for he makes reference ot the fall of Jerusalem and the captivity in Babylon (13:9-12; 14-15). In fact, what we have is a story about a Jewish family in the diaspora which could be anytime, anywhere in the 4th to 2nd century BC. The story is designed to encourage the Jews of the time to put their trust in God, to praise him, to practise works of mercy within their community, and to protect their Jewish identity y marrying people of their own religion.

… The author is more interested in showing that God helps people and provides for them; so, from the very start, when he sent the angel Raphael, he had already decided that everything was going to be sorted out. Also, the writer is not so much interested in the storyline as in the religious message, and he sprinkles his narrative with payers, discourses, and even conversations which the reader will find amusing because he already knws the truth (5:1-23).

In the early part of the book, the author writes in the first person (1:3 - 3:6), as if he were the main character, Tobias; this is a device to make the story sound more authentic.

There are things in the book of Tobit which make it rather like a sapiential work known as the “Wisdom of Ahikar”, a book which was very popular among the Jews of the diaspora even though it was not of Jewish origin. The author of Tobit seems to have been familiar with that book and he depicts Tobit as being an uncle of Ahikar, which has the effect of giving Tobit more status (1:21-22; 14:10-11). The sacred author want to show what true wisdom is for a devout Jew in the diaspora, and how he should conduct himself before God and in his family relationshiops, in line with the Law.

 

[NotWorthy]

And regarding Judith:

It is very difficult to say exactly when this book was written, because its literary genre is so unusual that the story itself provides no reliable points of reference. For example, it speak sof Nebuchadnezzar, King of Nineveh, as reigning shortly after the Jews returned from exile and rebuilt the temple, whereas in fact Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon and it was he who sent the Jews into exile. There are expressions in the text which ar typical of the Persian period - “prepareearth and water” (2:7), “the God of heaven” (5;8), the namees of Holofernes and Bagoas (cf. 13:1) etc. - but there are also many Greek elements - the gerusia (senate) of Jerusalem (cf. 11:14), the use of garlands (cf. 3:7), the reference to a king (Nebuchaznezzar) being a god (cf. 3:8), etc. Besides, it is difficult to work out the geography of the story and the place-names (inclding “Bethulia”).

In other words, this is not a history book in the sense that we use that word today. Its very particular literary style is full of symbolism: the little city of Bethulia, which resists so heroically, symbolizes all Israel; Judith (whose names means “the Jewess”), young and beautiful, devout and intrepid, stands fo rthe entire people which, armed only with its faith and trust in God, faces up to powerful and skilled enemies, symbolized by Nebuchadnezzar and his lieutenant Holofernes.

The book must have been written around the second half of the second century BC, in the context of the persecution unleashed by Antochus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt.

 

[NotWorthy]

Mark Shea, another noted Orthodox-thinking Catholic Apologist says this in his essay “5 Myths about 7 Books”

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.

 

[NotWorthy]

Antonio Fuentes, a frequent contributor to Catholic Answers, writes:

The story given in Tobit is an episode of family history. All the indications are that the sacred writer is reporting something that really happened: He gives the family tree of the main people involved and is very precise about details of geography and historical chronology; however, we cannot exclude the possibility of some passages being fictitious, the writer's purpose being one of spiritual and moral teaching rather than history proper.

and

It is important to bear in mind, that this is a free narrative of a historical event, written with a teaching, moralizing purpose in mind. This explains, for example, why Nebuchadnezzar (604-562 B.C.), is described as king of Nineveh, whereas Nineveh is known to have been destroyed in 612. According to the narrative itself we are in the post-exilic period, after the rebuilding of the Temple (4:3-13; 5:18). There are no signs of idolatry (8:18), and the Law is being rigorously observed (12:2-9). All this suggests that the sacred writer, for some reason of symbolism, wanted to give fictitious names to people and places. His contemporaries would have had no difficulty in working out what the characters' real names were, whereas we have the greatest difficulty.

What can be said is that here is a book built on a nucleus of historical fact but developed without paying much attention to historical detail: It was written in order to get across a message, that faithfulness to Yahweh saves Israel from every danger (8:11-27; 16:1-7).

Note: Antonio Fuentes’ Bible Studies can be found on the CatholicAnswers.Com web-site.

 

[diggerdomer]

Notworthy, I am trying to do the research. Will you please quote chapter and verse of what you question in both the books of Tobias and Judith. This will help me in the research.

I pray that the Holy Spirit guide us, and give us ears to hear Him.

I may be confused.

JnC, you are the one who seems to be questioning the Catholic approach to Scripture, as I’ve interpreted your postings. As we’re on a Catholic forum here, I’d think the burden is on you to raise and discuss the issues that concern you. I don’t think it’s appropriate, in some respects, to ask a Catholic to do that for you.

So, what are your questions? What are you trying to research? How can those who follow the Catholic Church’s teaching about Scripture help you?

Thanks

 

[NotWorthy]

I may be confused.

JnC, you are the one who seems to be questioning the Catholic approach to Scripture, as I’ve interpreted your postings. As we’re on a Catholic forum here, I’d think the burden is on you to raise and discuss the issues that concern you. I don’t think it’s appropriate, in some respects, to ask a Catholic to do that for you.

So, what are your questions? What are you trying to research? How can those who follow the Catholic Church’s teaching about Scripture help you?

Thanks

I think JnC’s question is totally valid. If she wished to defend the historical accuracy of Tobit (and Judith), then she needs to know what the questions are.

Besides, this is the most civil we’ve been with each other… don’t blow it now!!!

 

[donalddon5]

Antonio Fuentes, a frequent contributor to Catholic Answers, writes:

Quote:
The story given in Tobit is an episode of family history. All the indications are that the sacred writer is reporting something that really happened: He gives the family tree of the main people involved and is very precise about details of geography and historical chronology; however, we cannot exclude the possibility of some passages being fictitious, the writer’s purpose being one of spiritual and moral teaching rather than history proper.

and
Quote:
It is important to bear in mind, that this is a free narrative of a historical event, written with a teaching, moralizing purpose in mind. This explains, for example, why Nebuchadnezzar (604-562 B.C.), is described as king of Nineveh, whereas Nineveh is known to have been destroyed in 612. According to the narrative itself we are in the post-exilic period, after the rebuilding of the Temple (4:3-13; 5:18). There are no signs of idolatry (8:18), and the Law is being rigorously observed (12:2-9). All this suggests that the sacred writer, for some reason of symbolism, wanted to give fictitious names to people and places. His contemporaries would have had no difficulty in working out what the characters’ real names were, whereas we have the greatest difficulty.
What can be said is that here is a book built on a nucleus of historical fact but developed without paying much attention to historical detail: It was written in order to get across a message, that faithfulness to Yahweh saves Israel from every danger (8:11-27; 16:1-7).

Note: Antonio Fuentes’ Bible Studies can be found on the CatholicAnswers.Com web-site.

I disagree with the statement that we can discount some of the passages being fictitious.

Everything in the Jewish(post-christian) community seems to be written for a reason. We do not know what the situation the author of the scripture was. As an example, I will use the book of Revelation. Why did the author seem so cautious and use the #666 when he knew for sure he was talking about Nero and the answer seems simple…You will surely die(thrown in the lions den for entertainment) if the name of Nero was written in the letter. His letter was most likely closely read by the government of that time, why else would he had been a political prisoner on Patmos Island.

My point is: we do not know what the reasoning is.

 

[NotWorthy]

I disagree with the statement that we can discount some of the passages being fictitious.

I think you misunderstood. Where in that post did the writer claim that you can discount some of the passages being fictitious? The writer did not try to trivialize any of Tobit or Judith, simply because some verses may be fictitious.

 

[Luke65]

I disagree with the statement that we can discount some of the passages being fictitious.

Everything in the Jewish(post-christian) community seems to be written for a reason. We do not know what the situation the author of the scripture was. As an example, I will use the book of Revelation. Why did the author seem so cautious and use the #666 when he knew for sure he was talking about Nero and the answer seems simple…You will surely die(thrown in the lions den for entertainment) if the name of Nero was written in the letter. His letter was most likely closely read by the government of that time, why else would he had been a political prisoner on Patmos Island.

My point is: we do not know what the reasoning is.

You’re right, Donald, although I think NotWorthy takes issue with the word “discount”. But there’s nothing wrong with changing names to protect the innocent! After all, St. Peter said he was writing from “Babylon”, when we know that was code for Rome. So if the sacred author said, for example, “King Nebuchadnezzar” as a code for the current king, that doesn’t make the story fictional.

 

[littleone]

The Bible is the TRUTH. God could easily have said that it took Him billions of years. He has NEVER implied that it took more than six days.
Science is, many times, totally off base. Not only that, but it changes with every generation…if not more often. God’s word never changes.
Guess who I am going to be believing.

You have a good point here, Yes He could have said more than 6 days…or less, however I might be wrong but I think that the point is that most if not all people here seem to forget that "time’ as it is known is only an essence of measurable distance between one act and another by God’s cretion on this earth.
That is the very reason why God said (in the bible) “**Before **time was I AM” See the point,…God is and that remains before time because time relates to carnal being.
How do we know …because God said before time WAS…I AM.

Godbless.

 

[donalddon5]

I think you misunderstood. Where in that post did the writer claim that you can discount some of the passages being fictitious? The writer did not try to trivialize any of Tobit or Judith, simply because some verses may be fictitious.

I understand what you are saying but what I am trying to counter-argument is that none of the verses are fictitious. The post number 236 sums it up very well.

see MSG #236.