The Book of Tobit historically inaccurate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Padraig_77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Padraig_77

Guest
I was looking up some information on defending the Deuterocanonicals and I found some Protestant arguments against them that I am looking for an answer to:

One site says:

“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.”

“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.”


Also in the Books of Maccabees it is claimed:

“A man, Antiochos Ephiphanes dies 3 different times in 3 different places in the two books of Maccabees.”

I’ve read more arguments a while ago but, can’t find them at the moment. I’ve also heard some more liberal Catholics try to dismiss these by saying that “oh, well, these are parables or allegories and weren’t meant to be taken literally” in much they same way they do the Book of Genesis but, I hoping some more conservative or traditional Catholics can answer these claims, showing that these books are not historically inaccurate.

Thanks.
 
Maybe this article will help 5 Myths about 7 Books - Mark Shea . Read Myth 3

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.
 
“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n.21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)
 
Maybe this article will help 5 Myths about 7 Books - Mark Shea . Read Myth 3

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.
Just for the record, these are Mark Shea’s words. Yes, he has a good (even more full) explanation in the link provided.
 
Hi Padaig,

Does the book of Tobit purport to be historical? The Bible contains all kinds of writing ; history, poetry, love stories, self-help. Why can’t it have fiction?

Verbum
 
Hi Padaig,

Does the book of Tobit purport to be historical? The Bible contains all kinds of writing ; history, poetry, love stories, self-help. Why can’t it have fiction?

Verbum
Tobit, like Judith is not intended to be historical. It is like a short story set in a historical context. That the author got some details wrong (and nowhere near that of Judith) does not detract at all from its inspiration, because the genre does not require full historical accuracy.
 
“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n.21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)
Good to see these good basic guidelines !

Not uncommon that even in science , things that have been ‘proven’ and taught seem to change with furthur study such as how the accepted belief that certain landscapes thought to have taken many thousands of years were then shown to have happened within a very short time !

The accuracy of the current historical data too …who knows …

As to Judith ’ lying ’ , some of it sounds more like mocking the pride and arrogance of the enemy and warfare tactic .

Even as in the case of King David’s wrong choices ,even if it is more in the class of lying, this too may be serves to highlight the sinlessness of The Woman whom Judith foreshadows .

Good to see that Mother Church leaves enough room for those who so desire , to see these books as almost in the class of parables !

Blessings !
 
There is a modern scholarly tendency that whenever the Bible differs from any other historical writing, no matter how tenuous, to insist that the Bible has to be the source that is wrong. That is prejudicial.

We see this in books accepted by Protestants too. For example the famous Matthew “error” that Quirinius was not supposedly Governer of Syria when the bible says he was. Esther - another book which protestants accept also contains “historical and geographical errors” No Queen Esther is known to History. Nor is any Mordechai, or Queen Vashti. Ahasuerus Queen was not deposed, and outlived him. The Land of Agag is unknown at that time…

Daniel contains similar things, for example: Darius the Mede is unknown to history, Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar but of Nabonidus, etc.

The same sort of historical confusion in in Ezra shows King Darius appearing after Xerxes and Artaxerses, although according to present-day scholarship he reigned earlier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top