- Status
C
cascherman
Guest
Is that not three more than is contained in the NWT or the protestant Bible? We have a chance of finding the remaining books, but you are already behind by three.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
I simply noticed an aspect of the story that shows internal chronological error. I haven’t seen a good explanation for it. The account says that Tobit witnessed both the revolt of the northern tribes and the deportation of Israelites to Nineveh, events in Israel’s history that were separated by 257 years. Yet, the story says that Tobit was 112 years old at the time of his death.—Tobit 1:4,*11; 14:1
So, how is this to be understood? Is the story fiction or truth?
P
Pax
Guest
Each narrative has differences. These are in detail and content, but not of nature. All of them have the element of “magic” in them or none of them do. This is the area that I would like you to demonstrate a difference in.
P
Pax
Guest
I think we have answered this already…perhaps not to your satisfaction…that I might understand. In response to your concerns about Tobit and its historical accuracy/chronology, I asked you to address the other OT oddities in other books. That question still remains. What do you think?
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Dear Pax,
Please correct me if I’m wrong here, but I believe there has been much disagreement even within the Catholic Church about these Deuterocanon books.
My research material shows that leading Bible scholars and “church fathers” of the first centuries, on the whole, gave the Deuterocanon an inferior position.
Origen made a distinction between these writings and those of the traditional canon.
Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Amphilocius, all of the fourth century*C.E., prepared catalogs listing the sacred writings in accord with the Hebrew canon and either ignored these additional writings or placed them in a secondary class.
Jerome, who is described as “the best Hebrew scholar” of the early church and who completed the Latin Vulgate in 405C.E., **took a definite stand against these books **and was the first, in fact, to use the word “Apocrypha” explicitly in the sense of noncanonical as referring to these writings. Thus, in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, Jerome lists the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures in harmony with the Hebrew canon (in which the 39 books are grouped as 22) and then says: “Thus there are twenty-two books ..*. This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.”
In writing to a lady named Laeta on the education of her daughter, Jerome counseled: “Let her avoid all the apocryphal books, and if she ever wishes to read them, not for the truth of their doctrines but out of respect for their wondrous tales, let her realize that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that there are many faulty elements in them, and that **it requires great skill to look for gold in mud.”—**Select Letters, CVII.
As far as I understand, the trend toward including these additional writings as canonical was primarily initiated by **Augustine **although even he in later works **acknowledged that there was a definite distinction between the books of the Hebrew canon and such “outside books.” **
However, the Catholic Church, following Augustine’s lead, included such additional writings in the canon of sacred books determined by the Council of Carthage in 397*C.E.
It was, however, not until as late as 1546 C.E., at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church definitely confirmed its acceptance of these additions into its catalog of Bible books, and this action was deemed necessary because, even within the church, **opinion was still divided over these writings. **
John Wycliffe, the Roman Catholic priest and scholar who, with the subsequent help of Nicholas of Hereford, in the 14th century made the first translation of the Bible into English, **did not include the Apocrypha in his work, and the preface to this translation declared such writings to be “without authority of belief.” **
Dominican Cardinal Cajetan, foremost Catholic theologian of his time (1469-1534*C.E.) and called by Clement VII the “lamp of the Church,” also differentiated between the books of the true Hebrew canon and the Apocryphal works, appealing to the writings of Jerome as an authority.
It is to be noted as well that the Council of Trent did not accept all the writings previously approved by the earlier Council of Carthage but dropped three of these: the Prayer of Manasses and 1 and 2 Esdras (not the 1 and 2 Esdras that, in the Catholic Douay Bible, correspond with Ezra and Nehemiah). Thus, these three writings that had appeared for over 1,100 years in the approved Latin Vulgate were now excluded.
So, I don’t exactly see the clear cut unity of authority here within the Catholic Church. With this type of various within the Catholic Church, why would you expect someone outside to simply rely on the authority the Catholic Church claims for itself?
V
VARC
Guest
Good question. I don’t think Rome’s defenders would even embark on trying to convince a noncatholic on this issue. They are on defence on this one. Instead they will try to convince you of Rome’s authority and the rest of the issues will disappear.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Dear Pax,
I suspect you personally don’t claim this is an error, but have simply put it forth to make a point that chronological blunder in Tobit should be overlooked because of a perception of error elsewhere.
In my opinion, for someone to claim something is “false” here is presumptuous because there are various possible explanations.
One is that Acts 7:14 is based on the Greek Septuagint Version, and another is that Stephen included the wives of nine of Jacob’s sons.
Let us first note what Stephen said, as recorded in Acts 7:14: “So Joseph sent out and called Jacob his father and all his relatives from that place, to the number of seventy-five souls.” With that in mind we can consider what the Genesis account says about Jacob’s family transferring to Egypt.
Genesis 46:8 begins: “Now these are the names of Israel’s sons who came into Egypt: Jacob and his sons.” Then follows a list of Jacob’s descendants, including some of his great-grandsons. The enumeration concludes: “All the souls who came to Jacob into Egypt were those who issued out of his upper thigh, aside from the wives of Jacob’s sons. All the souls were sixty-six. And Joseph’s sons who were born to him in Egypt were two souls. All the souls of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt were seventy.”—Genesis 46:26, 27.
The list of 66 of Jacob’s offspring has been added up in various ways. Some scholars have included Judah’s sons Er and Onan as well as his grandsons Hezron and Hamul. (Genesis 46:12) Others have not counted Er and Onan, for they were already dead at the time of the move to Egypt. (Genesis 38:6-10) Some Bible students have counted Dinah, who apparently never married, or perhaps Eliab, Reuben’s son who is mentioned in Numbers 26:8. To the 66*descendants can be added Jacob as well as Joseph and his two sons (these final three not being part of the move to Egypt). This is how the total of 70 is reached.
The disciple Stephen certainly would have known that the Hebrew text said that 66 of Jacob’s family moved to Egypt. Why, then, does Acts 7:14 present Stephen as using the figure 75?
Some Bible commentators claim that Stephen may have based his remark on the Greek Septuagint translation of Genesis 46:27. That version gives the higher figure because in verse*20 it adds five names (three sons of Manasseh and Ephraim and two grandsons) not mentioned there in the Hebrew text. Or, if Stephen himself had in mind the Hebrew figure of 66, when Luke wrote the book of Acts in Greek he may have given the Septuagint figure, as that Greek translation was commonly used.
But whether Stephen actually spoke of 75 or that figure sprang from the Greek version of Genesis 46:26, the number can be harmonized with the Hebrew figure of 66 by adding the wives of Jacob’s sons, which Genesis 46:26 specifically says were omitted.
Why would only nine wives be counted? Of the 12sons, Joseph’s wife would not be included, for she was an Egyptian and was not called there by Joseph. (Acts 7:13-15) And by the time of the move Judah’s wife had died. (Genesis 38:12) That would leave 10wives at most. It is possible that Simeon’s Hebrew wife had died also, for his last son, Shaul, is described as “the son of a Canaanite woman.” (Genesis 46:10) Or the figure nine would have been correct if Benjamin, the youngest son, had not yet married when the family took up residence in Egypt. If this is so, Benjamin’s sons mentioned in Genesis 46:21 were born after the move but are listed because of the role they were to play in the tribe and the nation. (Compare Hebrews 7:9, 10.) Thus, if the wives of nine of Jacob’s sons are added to the subtotal of 66 mentioned at Genesis 46:26 in the Hebrew text, we have a total of 75, as the Septuagint says and as we read in Acts 7:14.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
This is another example of a perceived “error” that can easily be reconciled.
2 Chron 2:18; 8:10 state that the number of deputies serving as overseers and as foremen over the labor force was 3,600 plus 250, but according to 1*Kings 5:16; 9:23, they numbered 3,300 plus 550.
Why do the numbers differ?
The difference seems to be in the way the deputies are classified. It may be that Second Chronicles differentiates between 3,600 non-Israelites and 250 Israelite deputies, while First Kings distinguishes 3,300 foremen from 550 chief supervisors of higher rank. In any case, the total number of those serving as deputies was 3,850.
There’s no error here, just 2 accurate descriptions of the same group from different perspectives.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Anyone who’s ever bought a large tub to hold water knows there is a measurement for it’s total capacity. But, usually the tub of water isn’t filled to the brim… it’s filled to about 2/3rds of maximum capacity.
The account at 1Kings 7:26 refers to the sea as ‘containing two thousand bath measures,’ whereas the parallel account at 2Chronicles 4:5 speaks of it as ‘containing three thousand bath measures.’ While the Hebrew verb meaning “contain” in each case is the same, there is a measure of latitude allowable in translating it. Thus some translations render 1Kings 7:26 to read that the vessel “held” or “would contain” 2,000 bath measures, and translate 2Chronicles 4:5 to read that it “had a capacity of” or “could hold” or “could contain” 3,000 bath measures. (AT, JB, NW) This allows for the understanding that the Kings account sets forth the amount of water customarily stored in the receptacle while the Chronicles account gives the actual capacity of the vessel if filled to the brim.
There’s no error here. Just two accurate statements.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
This one is related to another perceived error I previously answered…
It may be that Second Chronicles differentiates between 3,600 non-Israelites and 250 Israelite deputies, while First Kings distinguishes 3,300 foremen from 550 chief supervisors of higher rank. In any case, the total number of those serving as deputies was 3,850.
No error.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
There were close to 900 documents in the DSS. There is absolutely nothing to indicate the three were part of any kind of a canon.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
And thus begins your problem with understanding Tobit…it’s NOT an historical account as we understand the term…nor is MOST OF THE BIBLE. The book of Tobit was written LONG AFTER the events depicted, it was written sometime around 200 BCE. The story can be true without being history. What is revealed about God and Faith in Tobit is True and good.
There are indeed inaccuracies in the bible, but these do not challenge my faith in the bible as God’s inspired word…God USES HUMAN AGENCY.
For instance…Jesus says in 2:26 that Abiathar was the High Priest when David ate the Shew Bread…however, 1 Samuel 21:2 tells us Ahimelech was High Priest at the time.
As to the argument to Church authority, in the case of the Catholic Church it’s a strong argument as we trace ourselves to the Apostles and Christ himself…your church can’t get much past 1874. However, the church does explain what it’s criteria was for scripture and Tobit falls within that. Again, WHERE DOES THE BIBLE DEFINE ITSELF? There is no list of books, and there really isn’t much of a definition other than it’s good for instructing remanding, etc.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Here’s another example where the a little investigation resolves the perception of an error:
At Mark 2:26 most translations have Jesus saying that David went into the house of God and ate the showbread “when Abiathar was high priest.” Since Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech, was the high priest when that event took place, such translation would result in a historical error. It is noteworthy that a number of early manuscripts omit the above phrase, and it is not found in the corresponding passages at Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4. However, a similar Greek structure occurs at Mark 12:26 and Luke 20:37, and here many translations use the phrase “in the passage about.” (RS; AT; JB) So, it appears that Mark 2:26 properly allows for the translation which reads: “How he entered into the house of God, in the account about Abiathar the chief priest.” Since the account of the first exploits of Abiathar begins immediately following the record of David’s entering the house of God to eat the showbread, and since Abiathar did later become Israel’s high priest in David’s reign, this translation maintains the historical accuracy of the record.
Can ANYONE provide an explanation for the chronological blunder in Tobit? It says he saw two events that were at least 257 years apart.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Folks, if you believe in the inspiration of Tobit, then just go ahead and read it. The purpose of this discussion wasn’t for me to argue against what you read or what you believe. I’m not on some mission against Tobit or the rest of the Deuterocanon.
In another thread, I was proactivcely criticized by someone because a translation I chose to use didn’t include the Deuterocanon and he wanted to know why not.
At this point, I’ve explain my reasons exhaustively and don’t feel the need to justify my conclusions about this book.
I’ve read it… I’ve studied it… I’ve compared the analysis of the book from various Catholic and non-Catholic sources.
The ironic thing is the person who criticized me and demanded an answer never commented in this thread.
In another thread, I was proactivcely criticized by someone because a translation I chose to use didn’t include the Deuterocanon and he wanted to know why not.
At this point, I’ve explain my reasons exhaustively and don’t feel the need to justify my conclusions about this book.
I’ve read it… I’ve studied it… I’ve compared the analysis of the book from various Catholic and non-Catholic sources.
The ironic thing is the person who criticized me and demanded an answer never commented in this thread.
P
Pax
Guest
Steve,
I posted the errors in the KJV for more than one reason. You are right about my intention to deflect attacks on Tobit. There is a reasonableness in all of this in that the errors in the KJV never seem to cause concern among non-Catholics about canonicity of OT books within their favorite non-Catholic bibles. It is improper to impose a double standard. If you wish to attack Tobit because of a “perceived” error, you must likewise attack the other books if they have actual errors. Tobit is not history as we know it. It is not an error…it is a setting to show the reader a larger than life figure for the lessons of faith and obedience.
The other reasons that I set these errors in front of you are as follows:
Your criticisms of Tobit must be applied in like kind to the other Books of the OT. Please note that what you are claiming is from a perspective that attributes characteristics of magic, sorcery, mediums etc. to the action of the angel and to the driving away of an evil spirit(i.e. devil).
I will now make a direct comparison of Moses and the Passover to Tobit and the evil spirit.
Please look at how closely the two events parallel one another in nature and kind. Obviously, some of the details vary, but much of the content is the same. If we wish to look at one instance as magic, sorcery, or some other such occult practice, then we must also look at the other in the same way. If we do not then we are applying a different standard to the two events.
Now my challenge to you is very simple. Look at the events in the two books, and carefully explain why your criticism should apply to one and not the other. Both ritual events have the purpose of affecting the behavior of a spirit. Both spirits are angels. One is an angel of the Lord and one is a fallen angel/demon.
I posted the errors in the KJV for more than one reason. You are right about my intention to deflect attacks on Tobit. There is a reasonableness in all of this in that the errors in the KJV never seem to cause concern among non-Catholics about canonicity of OT books within their favorite non-Catholic bibles. It is improper to impose a double standard. If you wish to attack Tobit because of a “perceived” error, you must likewise attack the other books if they have actual errors. Tobit is not history as we know it. It is not an error…it is a setting to show the reader a larger than life figure for the lessons of faith and obedience.
The other reasons that I set these errors in front of you are as follows:
- The discrepancies that I listed are errors. You cannot reconcile them within the KJV itself. The reason they are errors is because of the faulty Masoretic text upon which the King James translation is based.
- The discussion on this thread has included numerous comments back and forth on the Greek Septuagint. It just so happens that all of the errors that appear in the KJV and the Masoretic text upon which it is based do not occur in the Greek Septuagint. I can tell from your efforts to reconcile the verses that you realized that the Septuagint came into play with at least a couple of the problem areas. That is the key to the solution…the Septuagint doesn’t have the errors.
- This helps to give further credibility and importance to the Septuagint.
Your criticisms of Tobit must be applied in like kind to the other Books of the OT. Please note that what you are claiming is from a perspective that attributes characteristics of magic, sorcery, mediums etc. to the action of the angel and to the driving away of an evil spirit(i.e. devil).
I will now make a direct comparison of Moses and the Passover to Tobit and the evil spirit.
- In Exodus, Moses gives instructions to the people to perform a ritual that involves killing a lamb, eating the lamb, wearing certain clothes, and placing the blood of the lamb on the door posts. They are to burn whatever remained after the meal. (There are other ritual details that I did not list.)
- The purpose behind the instructions given by Moses to the people is to ward off the actions by the angel of death as he passed through the land of Egypt killing the first born. Thus the term “Passover.”
Please look at how closely the two events parallel one another in nature and kind. Obviously, some of the details vary, but much of the content is the same. If we wish to look at one instance as magic, sorcery, or some other such occult practice, then we must also look at the other in the same way. If we do not then we are applying a different standard to the two events.
Now my challenge to you is very simple. Look at the events in the two books, and carefully explain why your criticism should apply to one and not the other. Both ritual events have the purpose of affecting the behavior of a spirit. Both spirits are angels. One is an angel of the Lord and one is a fallen angel/demon.
P
Pax
Guest
You are certainly correct to point out that there was disagreement among the early church fathers concerning the deuterocanonical books of scripture. Likewise, there was disagreement about other books of scripture as well. Moreover, there was disagreement concerning books that never made it into the bible at all.
The Churchmen that had these disagreements were all sincere and many held well respected positions in the Church and still command substantial respect today. You named many of them and no Catholic would argue that they had different views. The main thing to remember is that the Churches all had lists of what they thought was acceptable for reading at mass. These lists varied from region to region and in some cases even from one Church community to another that was in relatively close geographical proximity.
Eventually, the Church began to assemble and examine the lists to make sure that only the appropriate works were allowed to be read within the liturgy. Spurious works might be OK for general reading, but were not considered appropriate for reading in the liturgy. The Church leadership began to look at these closely and there was a consensus that something needed to be done to determine what was and was not inspired and thus what should and should not be read in the liturgy.
The Counciliar decisions of the 4th century were an outgrowth of this movement. The Church decided as a whole what was considered to be inspired and therefore canonical. The individuals that disagreed among themselves all deferred to the will of the Church. This is not to say that some dissenting opinions would not be voiced along the way. These dissenting opinions did not affect or change the canon and never will. Wycliffe’s translation was not authorized and was riddled with errors. Wycliffe was never given permission to write an official translation of the bible because he was clearly rebellious against authority, and really wasn’t qualified to provide a first rate translation.
As we all know, the best translations we have are done by committees of scholars. The Greek Septuagint gets its name from the 70 scholars that did the translation. There is only one historical figure that provided a first rate translation as a semi “one man show”. That person was Jerome. Jerome depended to some degree on other well accepted translations and manuscripts, but is arguably the most gifted translator and one of the greatest scriptural scholars that ever lived.
The main thing to realize is that the Church compiled the inspired list of books forming the bible and eliminated the spurious non-inspired works. That is clearly the job and role of the Church. No one person or any other authority can make that claim, because no one else has been given the keys or the right to bind and loose.
S
swariffin
Guest
Thanks inthecloud.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Bump
- Status