The Deuterocanon - Should It Be Included?

[james_dillaplai]

po18guy said Jesus and his Apostles quoted from it… they did not.

The book of Tobit has grave errors which I pointed out and promotes activities condemned in the rest of the Bible.

The book shows no evidence of inspiration and I’m wondering what points of value people see in it.

It is most unlikely that the original Greek Septuagint contained these books. But even if some of these writings of doubtful origin crept into subsequent copies of the Septuagint circulated in Jesus’ day, neither he nor the writers of the New Testament Scriptures quoted from them even though using the Septuagint; they never cited as “Scripture” or the product of holy spirit any Deuterocanon writing. So, not only do these books lack internal evidence of divine inspiration and attestation by ancient inspired writers of the Old Testament but they also lack the stamp of approval by Jesus and his divinely accredited apostles. However, Jesus did approve the Hebrew canon, referring to the entire Hebrew Scriptures when he spoke of “all the things written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms,” the Psalms being the first and longest book in the section called the Hagiographa or Holy Writings.—Lu 24:44.

one im new to this but did Jesus and the apostle quote from every single book of the OT? If you can prove this then type in the scriptures and give information that proves Jesus was referring to the exact same passages
also doesnt it say (not sure which verse) that the Bible doesnt contain everything Jesus spoke?

 

[inthecloud]

Thake note that the book of Daniel was not really written by Daniel the prophet, that Isaiah only wrote about one third of his book and that Esther in the Masoretic version does not even mentions God and if you apply the weak argument that a book had to be either self atesting or quoted by Jesus and losts of OT books are going out too. And most of the NT books.

After the Masoretic Esther the only mayor book written by someone coming from a judeochristian tradition that does not mention God was Machiavelli´s The Prince.

 

[BibleSteve]

one im new to this but did Jesus and the apostle quote from every single book of the OT? If you can prove this then type in the scriptures and give information that proves Jesus was referring to the exact same passages
also doesnt it say (not sure which verse) that the Bible doesnt contain everything Jesus spoke?

Evidence of a book’s inspiration is discovered through a combination and variety of means. Quotes made from Jesus or the Apostles, fulfilled prophecies, internal consistency, compatibility with commandments found in other inspired books, etc… There are a variety of characteristics that each book can be measured against before deciding if a book is inspired.

po18guy criticized a particular Bible Translation for not including these extra books and I asked for specific evidence of why they should be considered inspired and canonical.

He gave me a link with evidence for the book of Tobit and I examined each “proof” that was provided.

I found it had internal chronological errors, was never quoted by Jesus or his Apostles, and promoted magic and sorcery.

Personally, I can see why some people would decide this is not an inspired book.

I’'d love to hear specific and strong evidence of why someone thinks this book is a product of God’s holy spirit and not just one of many uninspired books floating around during that time period.

As for the Deuterocanon as a whole, arguments in favor of the canonicity of the writings generally revolve around the fact that these writings are to be found in many early copies of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which translation was begun in Egypt about 280*B.C.E. However, since no original copies of the Septuagint are extant, it cannot be stated categorically that these extra books were originally included in that work. Many, perhaps most, of these extra writings were admittedly written after the commencement of the translation work of the Septuagint and so were obviously not on the original list of books selected for translation by the translating body. At best, then, they could rate only as accretions to that work.

While in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid foundation. The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in the fifth century*B.C.E. The Deuterocanon writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part of it today.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus shows the recognition given only to those few books (of the Hebrew canon) viewed as sacred, stating: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], and contain the record of all time.” He thereafter clearly shows an awareness of the existence of Apocryphal books and their exclusion from the Hebrew canon by adding: “From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.”—Against Apion, I, 38,*41 (8).

Additionally, while the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria eventually inserted such Deuterocanon writings into the Greek Septuagint and apparently viewed them as part of an enlarged canon of sacred writings, the statement by Josephus shows that they were never brought into the Jerusalem or Palestinian canon and were, at the most, viewed as only secondary writings and not of divine origin. Thus, the Jewish Council of Jamnia (about 90*C.E.) specifically excluded all such writings from the Hebrew canon.

 

[BibleSteve]

Thake note that the book of Daniel was not really written by Daniel the prophet

Let me question your belief on that.

That Daniel was the writer is made evident by the book itself. It reports: “In the first year of Belshazzar the king of Babylon, Daniel himself beheld a dream and visions of his head upon his bed. At that time he wrote down the dream itself. The complete account of the matters he told.” (Da 7:1) His being the writer is also apparent from the fact that chapters 7 through 12 are written in the first person.

Some critics question the authenticity of Daniel, assuming the position taken by a third-century heathen philosopher and enemy of Christianity, Porphyry, who contended that the book of Daniel was forged by a Palestinian Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. This forger, he theorized, took past events and made them appear to be prophecies. The genuineness of the book of Daniel was not seriously questioned, however, from that day until the early part of the 18th century. Jesus Christ’s own acceptance of Daniel’s prophecy is an even more significant evidence of its authenticity.—Mt 24:15; Da 11:31.

If Jesus Christ himself viewed Daniel as the author why wouldn’t you?

 

[BibleSteve]

Thake note that … Isaiah only wrote about one third of his book

Certainly there are some modern critics who think this, but are they correct? Let’s examine their “proof”…

Some claim that chapters 40 through 66 were written by an unidentified person who lived about the time of the end of the Jews’ Babylonian exile. Other critics pare off additional portions of the book, theorizing that someone other than Isaiah must have written them. But the Bible itself does not agree with these contentions.

Inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures credited both the material now designated chapters 1 to 39 and chapters 40 to 66 to “Isaiah the prophet.” They never intimated that there were two persons who bore this name or that the name of the writer of part of the book was unknown. (For examples compare Mt 3:3 and 4:14-16 with Isa 40:3 and 9:1,*2; also Joh 12:38-41 with Isa 53:1 and 6:1,*10.) In addition to this, **there are numerous other places where the New Testament writers specifically credit material quoted from the latter part of the book of Isaiah, not to an unidentified writer, but to “Isaiah the prophet.” **(Compare Mt 12:17-21 with Isa 42:1-4; Ro 10:16 with Isa 53:1.) Jesus Christ himself, when he read from “the scroll of the prophet Isaiah” at the synagogue in Nazareth, was reading from Isaiah 61:1, 2.—Lu 4:17-19.

Furthermore, the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah (IQIsa, believed to have been copied toward the end of the second centuryB.C.E.) contains evidence that the copyist who penned it knew nothing of any supposed division in the prophecy at the close of chapter39. He began the 40th chapter on the last line of the column of writing that contains chapter*39.

The entire book of Isaiah has been passed down through the centuries as a single work, not as two or more. The continuity from chapter39 to chapter40 is evident in what is recorded at Isaiah 39:6,*7, which is an obvious transition to what follows.

Those who would credit the book to more than one writer do not feel that it was possible for Isaiah to have foretold nearly two centuries in advance that a ruler named Cyrus would liberate the exiled Jews; consequently they speculate that this was written at a later time, at least after Cyrus began his conquests. (Isa 44:28; 45:1) But they fail to grasp the import of this entire portion of the book, because the material specifically deals with foreknowledge, with the ability of God to tell in advance what would happen to his people. Nearly 200 years in advance this prophecy recorded the name of one not yet born who would conquer Babylon and liberate the Jews. Its fulfillment would definitely prove that it was of divine origin. It was not Isaiah’s estimate of the future, but, as he himself wrote, “this is what YHWH has said.” (Isa 45:1) Ascribing the writing of this portion of Isaiah to a writer in Cyrus’ time would still not solve the problem for the critics. Why not? Because this portion of the book also foretold in detail events in the earthly life and ministry of the Messiah, Jesus Christ—things even farther in the future. The fulfillment of these prophecies seals the prophecy of Isaiah as divinely inspired and not a collection of the works of impostors.

Those who deny that Isaiah wrote chapters 40 through 66 usually, for like reasons, deny that he wrote chapter13, concerning the fall of Babylon. Yet chapter13 is introduced with the words: “The pronouncement against Babylon that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw in vision.” Obviously, this is the same “Isaiah the son of Amoz” whose name appears in the opening verse of chapter*1.

Can you provide evidence of the theory that the book of Isaiah was written by multiple authors?

 

[BibleSteve]

if you apply the weak argument that a book had to be either self atesting or quoted by Jesus and losts of OT books are going out too. And most of the NT books.

The point I’m making is that the contents of the book itself must give evidence that it is a product of Holy Spirit. Consequently, it cannot encourage superstition, demonism or creature worship. It must be in total harmony with the rest of the Bible.

Whether it was quoted by Jesus or his Apostles is not the be-all-end-all test, and some books can be inspired without that one characteristic.

It is telling though that while many of the 66 traditionally recognized canonical were quoted by Jesus and his Apostles, none of the Deuterocanonical books ever were.

 

[Pax]

Steve,

Canonicity and inspiration do not hinge upon the criteria that you propose. Certainly some of those things come into play, but it is the Church that determines what is and what is not canonical. You are not in any position whatsoever as to decide what is and what is not inspired. Luther thought the same way you do, and he wanted to toss James, Revelation, Jude, and another book or two from the NT. This is simply a no go.

There are other writings not included in the canon that many thought to be inspired and should be part of the bible. These people were considerably closer in time to the writings than we are. Nevertheless, they did not make the decisions. Instead, the Church made the decisions. The Church is the deciding factor.

Likewise, you are completely wrong about the Council of Jamnia. Please read the article at the following link:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

Another thing to keep in mind about Jamnia is this. No matter what influence it may have had within Judaism after the time of Christ, it has no bearing on Christianity. Christianity was alive and well for 60 years or so before Jamnia. The gathering of Pharisees at Jamnia was negative toward Christianity and reacted accordingly. That gathering had no Jewish authority as a Sanhedrin and no Sanhedrin or Jewish council ever had authority over Christians or what would be the Christian canon of scripture.
Your argument is a non-starter.

 

[Pax]

The point I’m making is that the contents of the book itself must give evidence that it is a product of Holy Spirit. Consequently, it cannot encourage superstition, demonism or creature worship. It must be in total harmony with the rest of the Bible.

Whether it was quoted by Jesus or his Apostles is not the be-all-end-all test, and some books can be inspired without that one characteristic.

It is telling though that while many of the 66 traditionally recognized canonical were quoted by Jesus and his Apostles, none of the Deuterocanonical books ever were.

The book of Tobit does not encourage superstition, demonism, or creature worship. You simply have no clue about this book. As I said in an earlier post…“get a good Catholic Biblical Commentary” to learn about the structure, purpose, and meaning of the Book of Tobit. Repeating your accusation without any knowledge or further research is useless.

 

[inthecloud]

The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in the fifth century*B.C.E. The Deuterocanon writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part of it today.

The evidence says that only one Jewish sect have closed the Canon, the Pharisees. Josephus was a Pharisee. The others either recognized only the Torah like the Saduccees or had a open canon. A common protestant mistake you should not make (I understand you are a JW) is to asume that the Pharisees were not just the biggest Hebrew group but the only one.
And as modern Biblical scholars many who are Jewish and secular and do not have a confesional ax to grind, the canon was far from closed into Jesus times. Otherwise Daniel, Esther; Lamentations and Qohelet would never have gone into the Bible.
The authorship of Daniel was disputed in the 1 century BC by the Escenes as the DSS have revealed. So the heaten was just repeating what he knew from Jewish sources. Maybe the book was recording a oral tradition dating from the real Daniel from Jesus times but it was a recent book not a 5 BC century one.
And the jews only regarded as God breathed Torah the rest are just devotional/doctrinal books.
Yavne(Iammia) was a Pharisee shul working after Jesus, I do not know why christians of any denominations should pay any attention to the thing they said about the Bible canon.
About Isaiah, is common practice in the Bible to adscribe the autorship of a Book to the man who provides the initial inspiration even if the actual writing was done by other people over a period of time. That happened to the Mosaic Torah, to Isaiah and even to the Gospels.
And there is a lot of intertextuality between some of the deutericanonicals like Wisdom or Ben Sirach and the New Testament. Is obvious that Jesus and Paul held those books in high steem.
Tobit and Judith are devotional novels, like Esther (who is in the Bible polemicaly). So they are not the best examples.

 

[BibleSteve]

Canonicity and inspiration do not hinge upon the criteria that you propose. Certainly some of those things come into play, but it is the Church that determines what is and what is not canonical. .

Dear Pax,

First off, thank you for your contribution to this discussion. I enjoy testing my own views and understandings against others who take learning about God’s word seriously like you do.

I believe the point you are saying is “It is the [Catholic] Church that determines what is and what is not canonical”. That is a common belief among Catholics, but I don’t see that to be specfically explained in the Bible.

Without any disrepect to you or your Church, my observation is that the Catholic Church declared itself to be the “one and only official” Church and in turn declared itself the body that determines canonicity.

Any group could make that claim. But, where is the independant, supporting proof? Once again, without any disrespect, the Catholic argument comes down to “because we believe we are authorized to be in charge”.

Jesus put his Apostles in charge. The Catholic Church arose years later after the death of the Apostles. But, Catholics will argue “those people were Catholics!”, The Bible didn’t give any specific organization name other than “Christian”. Claiming they were Catholics is about equivalent to me claiming they were Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Isa 43:10 "You are my witnesses, says YHWH)

Let us continue with your view that only the Catholic Church is responsible for making the decision of what is inspired and canonical.

The Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397*C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated.

The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s Holy Spirit—the same Spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s Spirit had authorized.

So my point is the canon isn’t determined by any religious organization defining themselves as the decision maker. The canon is determined by God himself and he gives divine indication to reveal what is and what isn’t inspired.

Well then, what are some of the **divine **indications that have determined the canonicity of the books of the Bible?

1. The documents must deal with YHWH’s affairs in the earth, turning men to his worship and stimulating deep respect for his name and for his work and purposes in the earth.
2. They must give evidence of inspiration, that is, that they are products of Holy Spirit. (2*Pet. 1:21)
3. There must be no appeal to superstition or creature worship but, rather, an appeal to love and service of God.
4. There would have to be nothing in any of the individual writings that would conflict with the internal harmony of the whole, but, rather, each book must, by its unity with the others, support the one authorship, that of YHWH.
5. We would expect the writings to give evidence of accuracy down to the smallest details.

Thanks for reading. I hope you understand I mean no disrespect to you, your faith, or your Church. I’m simply questions some of your presumptions.

Thanks,

 

[BibleSteve]

The book of Tobit does not encourage superstition, demonism, or creature worship. You simply have no clue about this book.

Please comment on the follow scriptures:

Tobit 6:5, 8, 9,19; 8:2,3; 11:8-15; 12:3

 

[Pax]

Dear Pax,

First off, thank you for your contribution to this discussion. I enjoy testing my own views and understandings against others who take learning about God’s word seriously like you do.

I believe the point you are saying is “It is the [Catholic] Church that determines what is and what is not canonical”. That is a common belief among Catholics, but I don’t see that to be specfically explained in the Bible.

Without any disrepect to you or your Church, my observation is that the Catholic Church declared itself to be the “one and only official” Church and in turn declared itself the body that determines canonicity.

Any group could make that claim. But, where is the independant, supporting proof? Once again, without any disrespect, the Catholic argument comes down to “because we believe we are authorized to be in charge”.

Jesus put his Apostles in charge. The Catholic Church arose years later after the death of the Apostles. But, Catholics will argue “those people were Catholics!”, The Bible didn’t give any specific organization name other than “Christian”. Claiming they were Catholics is about equivalent to me claiming they were Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Isa 43:10 "You are my witnesses, says YHWH)
…
…

Thanks,

Steve,

History simply does not agree with you. Ignatius of Antioch was a first century bishop that was martyred by the Romans in 110. Ignatius was discipled by the apostle John and was appointed as bishop of Antioch by the apostle Peter. Ignatius wrote a number of letters to various local churches on his way to martyrdom in Rome. In his letter to the church at Smyrna he refers to the one true church as “Catholic.” The term has remained with the Church that Jesus established ever since. The Catholic Church was the only Church. Heretical sects rose and fell but there was only one Church.

It is the Catholic Church that established the canon. The Catholic Church is the apostolic church established by Christ himself in Matthew 16:18. There is an unbroken apostolic chain within the Catholic church from then until now. The canon was established by this church and no other. God used the Church as the authoritative instrument for determining which books were and were not inspired. There was no other mechanism used or in place to accomplish the Lord’s will in this regard. When Jesus gives the authority to the apostles and thus His church to bind and loose, He thereby gave the Church the responsibility, power, and authority to establish the canon. If it were not for the Catholic church carefully copying, preserving, and protecting the scriptures we would have no bible at all. Likewise, we wouldn’t have a clue as to which books were canonical.

Your arguments and complaints against the Catholic Canon would be but one cry among thousands that wished to declare a canon. Either that or no one would care what was and what was not inspired. Give the Church the credit it deserves for the canon of scripture and accept it as the authoritative voice of Christ’s mystical body on earth. Christianity is not a democracy or a free for all. It is a monarchy with Christ as King, and the King has put a hierarchical structure in place to guide and govern the flock.

 

[Pax]

Dear Pax,

…
…
Let us continue with your view that only the Catholic Church is responsible for making the decision of what is inspired and canonical.

The Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397*C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated.

The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s Holy Spirit—the same Spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s Spirit had authorized.

So my point is the canon isn’t determined by any religious organization defining themselves as the decision maker. The canon is determined by God himself and he gives divine indication to reveal what is and what isn’t inspired.

Well then, what are some of the **divine **indications that have determined the canonicity of the books of the Bible?

1. The documents must deal with YHWH’s affairs in the earth, turning men to his worship and stimulating deep respect for his name and for his work and purposes in the earth.
2. They must give evidence of inspiration, that is, that they are products of Holy Spirit. (2*Pet. 1:21)
3. There must be no appeal to superstition or creature worship but, rather, an appeal to love and service of God.
4. There would have to be nothing in any of the individual writings that would conflict with the internal harmony of the whole, but, rather, each book must, by its unity with the others, support the one authorship, that of YHWH.
5. We would expect the writings to give evidence of accuracy down to the smallest details.

Thanks for reading. I hope you understand I mean no disrespect to you, your faith, or your Church. I’m simply questions some of your presumptions.

Thanks,

I appreciate the fact that you are respectful. Likewise, I respect you and your beliefs. We simply differ on how we view authority. As a Jehovah Witness I think you probably grasp the concept of authority. You are, however, unwilling to extend the concept to its logical conclusion in terms of the Church established by Jesus Christ. Jesus gave the keys to Peter individually and he gave him the power to bind and loose. Jesus then gave the power to bind and loose to the apostles collectively.

Likewise, Jesus tells us that the Father sent him with all authority and power[see Matt 28:18]. Therefore, when Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose, and when he gave the keys to Peter, He did so with all power and authority on heaven and earth. Not only that, but after the resurrection Jesus also tells the apostles " Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.[see Jn 20:21]” There is no question about the power and authority given to Jesus, nor is there any question as to the power and authority given to the apostles and their successors. The body of Christ, the Church, is the only authority that can declare the canon for Christians. That is the mechanism God put into place and that is the mechanism that handed down the Holy Scriptures to us today.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Hi Steve…in the early Church, there was often debate as to what was Scripture or not. Without an authority to determine the Canon, there is no arbiter to declare Tobit canonical or not. By the same reason, if you ask for quotes from the NT from Tobit, it begs the question…by what authority do you rely that the NT is divine revelation?

The question is also a little specious, since several books besides Tobit were not EXACTLY quoted in the NT. And as well, several books that are non Scriptural ARE quoted in the NT (Jude quotes the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, for instance).

So the simple answer we know Tobit is inspired because God has so revealed through His Church.

 

[Pax]

Please comment on the follow scriptures:

Tobit 6:5, 8, 9,19; 8:2,3; 11:8-15; 12:3

I will not go through every passage because of the following things:

1. The constraints on my time.
2. The necessity of a full blown commentary; I have already suggested using one of these.
3. The amount of time and space to devote on a forum is excessive.

I will, however, give you the following comments from Mark Shea concerning some of your complaints.

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.

Very well then, but what of the moral and theological “errors”? Judith lies. Raphael gives a false name. So they do. In the case of Judith lying to King Holofernes in order to save her people, we must recall that she was acting in light of Jewish understanding as it had developed until that time. This meant that she saw her deception as acceptable, even laudable, because she was eliminating a deadly foe of her people. By deceiving Holofernes as to her intentions and by asking the Lord to bless this tactic, she was not doing something alien to Jewish Scripture or Old Testament morality. Another biblical example of this type of lying is when the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh about the birth of Moses. They lied and were justified in lying because Pharaoh did not have a right to the truth - if they told the truth, he would have killed Moses. If the book of Judith is to be excluded from the canon on this basis, so must Exodus.

With respect to Raphael, it’s much more dubious that the author intended, or that his audience understood him to mean, “Angels lie. So should you.” On the contrary, Tobit is a classic example of an “entertaining angels unaware” story (cf. Heb. 13:2). We know who Raphael is all along. When Tobit cried out to God for help, God immediately answered him by sending Raphael. But, as is often the case, God’s deliverance was not noticed at first. 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.

 

[BibleSteve]

Tobit 6:5, 8, 9,19; 8:2,3; 11:8-15; 12:3

Why is the “angel” encouraging behavior contrary to other Bible commands against this type of activity?

Is there any evidence of inspiration in this book?

 

[Pax]

Steve,

In an earlier post I gave you an indication as to what this was all about in terms of obedience. I referenced events in Leviticus and in Numbers. One of those cited was the command to Moses to make a “fiery serpent” and to place it on a pole so the people would look at it and be cured of the venomous bites from the serpents in their locale.

Was Yahweh encouraging superstition by giving this command to Moses?

If not, then one must look reasonably at the rest of scripture when it comes to this kind of thing. If we don’t, we will soon be criticizing the sacred authors in many OT books every time we read that they are doing something seven times. This includes walking around the walls of Jericho, sprinkling blood upon the altar seven times, Elisha telling Naaman to wash in the Jordan seven times to cure his leprosy, and on, and on, and on. We would even be all over Jesus for being superstitious when he used mud and spittle to cure the blind man or we would even say that the woman healed of the hemorrage when she touched the hem of Jesus garment did so superstitiously. This is simply the wrong way to look at all of this and it is the wrong way to look at Tobit.

Tobit’s journey is symbolic. The story of the fish and the cures may also be symbolic. The curative properties associated with the heart, liver, and gall of the fish are taken from what was considered common natural health remedies of the times. From there the angel commands a ritual asscociated with this. This is a ritual for obedience based on faith and not a ritual of superstition. Moreover, it is not encouraging superstition. Jesus used rituals to heal as in the example of the mud and spittle. There is nothing superstitious. Moreover, every Christian that accepts the Dueterocanonical books of scripture accepts Tobit for its message. None of us before or after the Reformation has any inkling or sense at all that this book encourages superstitious practices nor do any of us ever attempt to use the heart, liver, and gall of a fish to drive off demons or to do anything else of a miraculous nature. This is because we understand the book for what it is.

This is no different than the book of Numbers and the bronze serpent. Since you accept the Book of Numbers should I surmise that you accept superstitious practices and that you believe that the book encourages superstitious practices concerning snake venom and the cure by way of a bronze serpent? Should I make accusations against the Book of Numbers because of the narrative on the serpent bites and the cure via the bronze serpent as ordered by God and carried out by Moses? Should this be a test of the canonicity of the Book of Numbers? Does this narrative justify rejecting the Book of Numbers? Some how I don’t think it does, and I don’t think your attack on Tobit does so either.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Nope, PO18guy is correct. The Deuterocanon existed 120 years prior to Jesus’ birth. The Septuagint included those, and the Septuagint was used by the Israelites outside the land of Judea. The Septuagint was also already existed 120 BC. The churches established by Paul must have used it, especially for those Israelite born outside the land of Judea, and well versed in Greek rather than in Hebrew. Just like Chinese decendents all over the world born and live outside china, unable to speak nor read chinese anymore.

The fact of the matter is that you have no idea what the Septuagint at that time contained because the earlies copies of the Septuagint -Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrius have diffferent books. And that is 500 years later!

 

[BibleSteve]

Steve, In an earlier post I gave you an indication as to what this was all about in terms of obedience. I referenced events in Leviticus and in Numbers. One of those cited was the command to Moses to make a “fiery serpent” and to place it on a pole so the people would look at it and be cured of the venomous bites from the serpents in their locale.

Was Yahweh encouraging superstition by giving this command to Moses?

Dear Pax,

First my compliments to you for writing a excellent explanation of your views of Tobit. You’ve produced many examples of “approved” Bible events that could look “superstitious” to a Bible reader. And, since all these actions and events are considered OK, then why have a problem with the Angel in Tobit encouraging something that also seems just “superstitious”?

The concern I’m pointing out is that the Angel’s advice wasn’t something that just looked superstitious. This angel was encouraging Tobit into behavior that specifically violated Yahweh’s commands against magic and sorcery under the penalty of death.

Remember, the Bible forbids every form of spiritistic magic. (Le 19:26; De 18:9-14) Yahweh gave his people some very explicit laws concerning those who were involved with the spiritistic activities. “You must not preserve a sorceress alive.” (Ex 22:18) “You must not practice magic.” “As for a man or woman in whom there proves to be a mediumistic spirit or spirit of prediction, they should be put to death without fail.” (Le 19:26; 20:27) “There should not be found in you . . . a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium.”—De 18:10-14. God would cut off all those who indulged in sorceries. (Mic 5:12) Certain individuals such as Saul, Jezebel, and Manasseh, who forsook Yahweh and turned to sorceries of one kind or another, are examples of the past not to be copied.—1Sa 28:7; 2Ki 9:22; 2Ch 33:1, 2, 6.

Much of the concept of magic-working sorcery is based on the belief that evil spirits can be induced either to leave or to enter a person.

With this in mind, what did the “angel” encourage Tobit to do?

Tobit 6:8, 19 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….And on that night lay the liver of the fish on the fire, and the devil shall be driven away.

That is a complete violation of Yahweh’s instructions about how to deal with wicked spirit forces.

It was the pagan nations, the sorcerers, the magic-practicing priests, etc. who used rituals such as burning animal parts to protect themselves from evil spirits.

The Bible is singularly different from the writings of other ancient people in that its references to uncanny powers and magical arts are all condemnatory., Instead of using “white magic” to battle “black magic” or burning animal organs to create smoke to ward off demons, it urges faith, prayer, and trust in Yahweh as the protection against unseen “wicked spirit forces” and all their related activities, including magical influences. (Eph 6:11-18) In the Psalms the righteous pray for deliverance from evil; Jesus taught us to pray for deliverance “from the wicked one.” (Mt 6:13)

However, the angel in the book of Tobit encouraged him to engage in the exact behavior that Pagan nations used, burning animals parts thinking they would protect themselves by driving away demons.

That is one of the two major concerns I have about the inspiration of this book.

The second major concern is a complete chronological fabrication. The account states that in his youth Tobit saw the revolt of the northern tribes, which occurred in 997 B.C.E. after Solomon’s death (Tobit 1:4, 5, JB), also that he was later deported to Nineveh with the tribe of Naphtali, in 740 B.C.E. (Tobias 1:11-13, Dy) That would mean that he lived more than 257 years. Yet Tobias 14:1-3 (Dy) says he was 102 years old at the time of his death.

In summary, I’m not on some mission to insist others stop reading Tobit, or remove it from your view of the Canon.

I am simply responding to criticism about it not being included in a specific translation I use.

The book has serious red-flags in my opinion.

 

[Alexius]

This is a fascinating topic and it leads to some very real questions as to the degree of “errors” within Scripture. Are we to assume that the 66 books (subtract the Deuterocanon for a second) are without errors? If they contain historic and/or other errors, then it would seem that this is no reason to reject the Deuterocanons…Perhaps to clear this up, it could be stated to what degree Scripture is Spirit-filled/inerrant…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius