A reader writes:
For the last ten years or so,I have really been wrestling with the Book of Tobit. I consider myself a conservative Catholic and attended a Catholic school-elementry and high school (and graduated from it). I remember reading about Tobias in my freshman year. I didn't really think too much of it, but as the years passed I found myself wondering why it is in our Bible. You say we shouldn't take it literally and I have to agree, I have even seen a footnote in a recent Catholic Bible- with the "Imprimatur" saying that he book should be considered as allegorical. My question is, why do they allow this Arabian Night fairy tale to even be in our Bible? The Greek Orthodox also allows it, more than likely because, before the Schism, both the Eastern and Western Empires agreed it should be in there. I was told that Satan has NO power over life and cannot kill anyone. Satan can entice someone to kill another, but cannot directly kill anyone - he has no real power over life and death, yet here we have a "demon" killing a woman's husbands on their wedding night and then here comes Tobit with some "magical" charms retrieved by him and his angel companion from a fish. Tobit then "destroys" the demon with this magical potion. Hard to believe a Pope would give his blessing to such tripe! Of course I could always be wrong about the power allotted to Satan but the magical potion reads right out of something that should begin with: "Once upon a time...." P.S. after having said this, I'll probably have believers in this book sticking a doll rep of me with pins.
I'm of the opinion (perfectly acceptable, though not, of course, mandatory for Catholics) that Tobit is a work of fiction. The clues in the text strongly suggest this, as when Tobit is named as the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure out of ancient mideast folklore. If you want to get a feel for how that sounded to the original audience, imagine telling a tale to an English speaker that announces its hero as the uncle of Jack the Giant Killer. Your audience instantly knows from such a cue what sort of story it is hearing and interprets it accordingly. That said, I guess I see no reason why God could not inspire a folk tale that begins "Once upon a time". Jesus told fictional stories all the time. There was not really a Prodigal Son. There was not really an unjust judge, or a man who found a pearl of great price, or Good Samaritan. What's wrong with an Old Testament author doing likewise and obeying the conventions of a good "entertaining angels unaware' yarn in order to show virtue triumphing over evil through patient endurance?
Not, I repeat, that you have to think Tobit is fiction. Lots of people in antiquity took it for a factual story. I don't think it matters. And the people who took it for a factual story don't seem to have spent a lot of time worrying about it. The Fathers of the Church who comment on Tobit are not, as is their custom, super-concerned with whether it is factual. What they are interested in is what God is saying to us through the story and so they mine it for its moral teaching (primarily) and (secondarily) for its allegorical meaning concerning Christ. As Patrick Reardon notes:
it is instructive to observe that early Christian exegesis of the Book of Tobit was of a predominantly moral and ascetical interest. With very few exceptions, patristic interpretation of Tobit was straightforward and literal, with relatively little, and hardly any sustained, appeal to hidden symbolisms. The longest extant patristic work devoted to Tobit, that of Ambrose of Milan, exemplifies this approach convincingly. After drawing attention to the major moral features of Tobit’s character, Ambrose devotes the rest of his discourse to a robust condemnation of avarice and usury.That is to say, Ambrose went to Tobit almost exclusively for moral teaching.
To be sure, a modest measure of patristic exegesis of Tobit was allegorical, in the sense of finding hidden references to the mysteries of the Christian faith. For example, attention was sometimes drawn to Tobias’s fish, whose various body parts were used to remedy the problems of the family. Given the common and widespread Christological symbolism of the fish (ichthys) among believers, it was virtually inevitable that Tobias’s fish, too, who quite literally gave his life for the family, should be regarded as a foreshadowing of the Savior. This symbolism is found in the fourth century, first in the mural iconography of the Roman catacombs and then in a few literary references.
Similarly, Isidore of Seville believed that young Tobias, inasmuch as he healed his parent’s blindness, “had an image of Christ.”Nonetheless, such recourse to allegorical symbolism to interpret the Book of Tobit was relatively rare among earlier Christian writers.
As to why the Pope keeps it in the Bible, it's not the Pope's Bible to fiddle with. The Pope is bound by apostolic tradition. The apostles accepted and used the canon of books found in the Septuagint (including Tobit). So the Pope accepted it as Scripture because the apostles taught him to. Once the canon of Scripture is defined, the Pope has no authority to contradict what the Holy Spirit has spoken through Holy Church. Nor do we. Scripture is not there to affirm our aesthetic choices, but to reveal divine truth to us on God's terms, not ours. The healthy approach to Tobit is therefore to let it challenge you, rather than for you to ignore it. Why not try a decent commentary on Tobit that draws on the Catholic tradition to see what the great saints and thinkers of the Church have mined from it?
Comments
Post a Comment
I like the “fish” part of the story.
If Tobit is a work of fiction, does that mean that the archangel Raphael is also fictional?
Nope. If I write a work of fiction about the assassination of JFK, that doesn’t make JFK fictional. It just means I’ve taken someone real and worked him into a story. The faith of the Church is that the archangels Michael, Raphael and Gabriel are real.
I was taught that the demon was lust—that’s what killed the previous husbands. Tobias and his wife, as instructed by Raphael, pray piously in their bed chamber and he is not killed by that demon. So pray to Saint Raphael the Archangel for chastity in marriage.
The Reader might also have a problem with Job. The devil does some killing as part of that tale…
The wife’s name is Sarah, and the book of Tobit is more about her than about Tobias. There is a strange symmetry between Sarah and her future father in law.
John is quite correct. Job chapter one: 18-19 the devil kills with a storm:
” He was still speaking when another came and said, “Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in the house of their eldest brother,
19
and suddenly a great wind came from across the desert and smashed the four corners of the house. It fell upon the young people and they are dead; I alone have escaped to tell you.”
Jennifer> Real characters commonly appear in fictional stories. I might be mistaken, but I believe Sacred Tradition supports the existence of Raphael even if one does not interpret Sacred Scripture to do so conclusively. Just a thought on a matter that has bugged me too.
At the risk of incurring some displeasure from Mark again, I’d like to point out something related to his statement: “The healthy approach to Tobit is therefore to let it challenge you, rather than for you to ignore it.” This is something we agree on. But here is where I guess we will not agree—I assert that the Tobit story, whether historical or fictional, conveys the principle that it can be morally acceptable to go “undercover” and speak falsehoods with intention to deceive (as the angel Raphael does with Tobit in the explanation of how the angel is “blood relative” or kinsman of Tobit)....
... In this context, an angel does what Mark has elsewhere called “lying”—so my question would be to you, Mark, and other readers—does the status of the book as either fiction or non-fiction make any difference on this point? Or is it clear, one way or the other, that this inspired bit of Scripture asserts that the kind of undercover work employed by Raphael—which involves speaking falsehood with intention to deceive—is an okay thing?Not looking for an elaborate dragout on this—but I’m totally curious about what folks think about this “undercover” example…
God bless you,Deacon JR
....Or is it clear, one way or the other, that this inspired bit of Scripture asserts that the kind of undercover work employed by Raphael—which involves speaking falsehood with intention to deceive—is an okay thing?Not looking for an elaborate dragout on this—but I’m totally curious about what folks think about this “undercover” example…
God bless you,Deacon JR…(sorry for multiple posts—another round of error messages preventing me from posting…)
Deacon
It’s not only there….it’s a good part of Judith’s approach to Holofernes and of Jehu’s talk to the Baal worshippers in 2 Kings 10. So Tobit is not unique as supporting undercover deceptive utterance.
satan does not cause the storm which kills Jobs children, and destroys his possessions. Unaided, he is simply unable to do so. Perhaps his is a prophetic voice?
Why do you assume, deacon, that any prevarication is at play in Tobit’s scripture? Isn’t that contrary to the word of God? Scripture “is” with a clarity that is unmatched by mere sublunary things. However, interpretation is varying and inconstant.
Didn’t Christ say to Peter “why did you doubt,” as they resumed their passage? When scripture seems to fall short of your standards of veracity, perhaps you lack the key?
MattB
Asserting isn’t proving. The text has the devil kill Job’s children with a storm which seems to align with the title Ephesians 2:2 gives him the Douay-Rheims Bible:
“Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief..”
If Satan is so described, it is only in a subsidiary way. Theology which construes God’s permissive will as something inert or inactive are exonerating Him in an impertinent and non-essential act of judgment.
There really are better translations than Douay-Rheims.
Proving really isn’t proving either.
MattB
You’re simply asserting against scripture. Here is the second beast in Revelation causing change in the behaviour of the sky. You apparently are vulnerable to the deceptions of the devil because you understate his power in the physical world: Revelations 13:11
” Then I saw another beast come up out of the earth; it had two horns like a lamb’s but spoke like a dragon.
13 It performed great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of everyone.”
Readers who assent to MattB in this, I’m done. Follow MattB in this specific area and you can thank God you’re not living in the end times because you and he would attribute to God what anti Christ is actually doing. Err….that’s what anti Christ will want at that time: for you to have a limited idea of what the devil can do in order that you attribute his works to
God instead of to him. MattB….off camera….back off from this absurdity. On camera…on net….few humans take correction. You’re helping antiChrist way before he gets here with a mini tradition that scripture tells you is incorrect.
One should beware fictionalizing Scripture. Because something is allegorical does not mean it is not actual. In Galatians Paul tells us that Sarah and Hagar are allegorical: “these women stand for two covenants” (one slave and the other free). But no one would say that Sarah and Hagar were not real persons (certainly Paul did not think so). Tobit is allegorical; but there is no need to see it as fiction. First of all, it does not have the literary quality of fiction - it does NOT begin “Once upon a time…” or, like Jesus’ parables, “There was a man…”, (any man, everyman) but is very specific about who Tobit is - his tribe, his ancestors, where he lived, the place to which he was exiled, etc.
I would encourage everyone to read Scripture, through the eyes of faith, as if it it says what it means - in this case as if Tobit is the person the book says he is. When one does this, rather than jumping quickly on the bandwagon that says “that can’t be so”, one will find the light of wisdom to reveal how it CAN be so; re Tobit: if Ahiqar is such a popular personage, could not people have been named after him, and so could not Tobit’s uncle have been named after him and so be a real person? Regarding the parts of the fish that were used, one would see that, as has been pointed out, that their use was coupled with the paragon of prayers for marital chastity; one would also recall that throughout Scripture (even up to the choosing of Matthias as the 12th apostle) casting of lots is done, another popular practice among the pagans - but in Scripture it is with a trust in the sovereignty of God.
Please, I would beg great circumspection before calling any part of Scripture a work of fiction, in contradiction of Fathers of the Church and common sense, and to the undermining of the Faith. This thinking permeates Biblical scholarship and it has led even to the doubt that Jesus was a real person, that He was resurrected - all these things are unimportant to such enlightened, allegorical thinkers. And so, Jonah also was not a real person; and so on judgment Day we will (according to the words of Christ and current interpretation thereof) be judged by fictional characters (the Ninevites who repented at Jonah’s preaching). Even in the Navarre Bible we read that Daniel is not a real person (and David didn’t write many of the Psalms, etc.), why? because he could not have been in the court of Babylon through the whole exile. But anyone with an ounce of common sense, and Biblical sense, would realize he came to Babylon as a boy, entered the court as a teenager.. and the exile was only 70 years (or less)… so, what, Daniel couldn’t have lived to 80, 85 (don’t tell my 84-year-old mom that)?
We have an incarnational Church, and Christ is the incarnate Word of God - He, we may say, is Scripture, the Word. If you fictionalize the Word, you serve the fictionalizing of Christ. Again, please beware the fictionalizing of God’s Word; you may soon find yourself lost and with no one guide you along the right path and heal your blindness (because, of course, Raphael only appears in Tobit and Tobit is a bit of fiction we all could have a good guffaw over).
My answer to you Matt B may have been blocked. Revelation has antichrist bring fire from heaven to the earth in chapter thirteen verse thirteen. Understate the devil’s physical power and you and like thinkers will be fooled by antichrist who needs you to attribute such devil wonders to God. Fortunately you are not living then.
The book of Jonah is pretty clearly a “fairy tale”, too. I understand that it has similarities to other examples of ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature.
David,
That was not clear to Christ that Jonah was fictitious since Christ cites it as having Last Judgement participants…
” The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here.”
I never tried warning another person of hell by citing characters from “The Hardy Boys” detective novels.
Scripture has a lot of actions by its “heroes” which are morally dubious, that shouldn’t be counted as endorsing them - Jacob’s lying being the one that most instantly comes to mind, but also quite a number of David’s actions. Usually, the Old Testament doesn’t engage in direct moralizing against them, but draws out their consequences to show you that such actions are not good. The answer to the Tobit question (and also that of Judith) is that it is fiction, and the dissembled character is a convention in fiction, particularly in the Old Testament, with several variations on the theme. Besides you cannot read off moral philosophy or moral theology from the behaviour of Old Testament characters, even good ones. That is not the purpose of the Old Testament, any more than it is its intention to tell a straightforward history or teach astronomy. To some extent, as the Catechism argues (CCC 122) conforms to the laws of the development of sensibility concerning morality that culminates in Christ.
Also, in regard to the Old Testament, one way of looking at it is to see how it views itself, and it is fairly evident that the Old Testament authors consider themselves as contributing to a mosaic or a polyphony, and not a monolithic enterprise. They frequently “correct” earlier perspectives (Chronicles and Kings, even Leviticus and Deuteronomy), criticize each other (Jonah’s broad embrace of humanity within salvation history criticizing the narrow exclusionism of Ezra-Nehemiah). Even consider the broad scope of arguments (and varieties of moral worldviews and advice) between Job, Ecclesiastes, and Ecclesiasticus. All of this, does not make it invalid, only complex and multi-layered, in short good and inspired literature, not “mere” literature, but literature for all that.
David J. - And man has similarities to the ape - but they are different. Different in kind, in fact. One is the Word of God - for anyone who believes - the other words are inspired by the imagination… or perhaps demons. This is the crux of the problem - the inability to discern the essential difference between the Bible and any other book.
If Jonah is a “fairy tale”, then Jesus compares himself with a fairy tale character and, as I say, we shall be judged by fairy tales characters (cf. Mt.12:38-42). Or is he actually one of the greatest of prophets, as understood in Scripture, by the Fathers, and by a believing heart?
I would posit that it is a lack of faith that leads one to think that, say, a man could not be swallowed by a fish and live in its belly three days. Which is harder to believe, this, or that a man was dead and buried in the earth three days and then rose and walked through walls and eat fish and rose to glory?
Bill, I’m not denying Satan’s power, but just defining it as agency power, not power pro se.
Many people fail in their understanding of Revelation. I remember reading a curious account by DH Lawrence. I thought it strange that the writer of Lady Chatterly’s Lover could have such a detailed reading of an obscure scriptural book. It was certainly as entertaining as many evangelical attempts.
If you come at the book as a Catholic, there are three things to remember: There are no real oppositions; God is always totally in charge. Then, God’s purpose is not to vanquish any fallen souls, either human or angelic. Finally, Revelation is imbued with a creative art far above any merely mundane literary work. If you’re reading it as a scorecard you’re missing the point.
I hope you’re mistaken about me “leading people astray” in any interpretation I offer on this or any scripture. Matt 21, 44 talks about a rock which had been rejected now becoming the cornerstone. “And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him.”
As a practical matter, I find that Revelation resembles Star Wars far more than it does Cotton Mather. George Lucas, evangelist - go figure.
Matt B,
Bye. Off camera…reread.
Just to touch on your sympathetic advice “off-camera,” Bill: Whatever my views may be, subtle or unsubtle, great or small, I offer them with real humility and love. I’ve heard people say that my tone is sometimes off-putting and brusque. My content may not appeal to you or others on this or that ground. But think about this:
You don’t know if I’m rich or poor, if I have a great important job or clean up after meetings. You have no idea what I look like or how old I am. I’m absolutely nothing to you but the words you’re reading on your computer screen. I could disappear tomorrow, and none of the NCR readers would know care or notice. I’m nobody and nothing.
I’m only something if my word stirs up your heart as you read. As you read, you might have a residual effect of an idea or emotion. That’s all I am. And that’s all I want to be.
Peace. I love youu
If I’m not mistaken, Tobit (ref. Chapter 6, Verse 18) is the only instance in the entire Bible wherein God actually seems to care about bringing a couple together in what might be called in today’s terms “romantic” love.
Depressing. But then again, if God truly is all wise (which I believe He is), how better to show that wisdom than by staying as far away as He can from interfering in volatile man-woman relationships, especially since many, if not most at least nowadays, turn to crap?
Don’t mean to sound so cynical: perhaps I should’ve stopped after the first paragraph.
Robert, The Song of Songs (which is considered the Book of the Book) is a song of the love of God and man told as an unabashed romance. (Might want to read some John of the Cross on this love story… perhaps The Living Flame of Love.) Throughout the Bible God’s relationship with man is presented as one between Bridegroom and Bride. Jesus’ first miracle was the changing of water to wine at the Wedding Feast at Cana, and he should be the third person in every Christian marriage or it is not a Christian marriage (and will have little hope of persevering.)
James Kurt, the decision to class Jonah as not history has nothing to do with being swallowed by a whale, and a lot to do with recognizing the genre of literature it is. Jonah is written in a particular style that suggests it is a satire (the animals fasting in sackcloth, for instance, not to mention the fact that the only disagreeable character in the entire book is Jonah himself) with a pointed moral for 4th century Judah. It is a theological treatise in the form of a story. There are ancillary reasons that aid the identification of Jonah as a-historical, of course, like that the dates don’t tally up, that there is no extra-Biblical evidence of a large-scale conversion of Nineveh, etc… but the chief one is the genre of literature to which it belongs. Similar considerations would prompt classification of Job as not historical. All that said, I am quite prepared to accept that you are free to believe that all four of Tobit, Job, Jonah, and Daniel existed *and* substantially correspond to their biblical depiction, but in no way does the Church require such a belief, and I do not myself share such a belief and do not see how it has something to do with a purported lack of faith.
As for Jesus’ words, there is such a thing you know as figurative speech. After all, we frequently compare people to Gordon Gecko, Homer Simpson, Michael Corleone, Gargantua, Colonel Kurtz, Godzilla, etc… Doesn’t mean we are endorsing their existence in real life.
Bob, I have a hard time thinking of Jesus comparing himself to Homer Simpson. Sorry. Or Hamlet for that matter. Much less Him saying that fictional men will rise on the last Day and judge hardened souls. (Also, as i said re Tobit, it is NOT written as a parable, as a tale of a universal figure, but, again, of a very specific man - who has been hailed in Scripture and by the Fathers and in great art as one of the greatest of prophets.)
Because Jonah is “disagreeable” does not make the book a satire. Jonah is gravely intent on not offering the possibility of redemption to those he perceives as enemies of his people. This is not a joking matter but is at the very heart of the message of Scripture - that all who come to Him are saved by the blood of Christ. Jonah and all the Chosen people (and all people) must come to accept this and it was and is not an easy lesson for them (or us) to learn. I find it a very serious matter. As for the animals in sackcloth - I do not see a sign of the depth of the repentance of the Ninevites fodder for satire either. (And I wonder why in an age when people take their pets to doggy spas in designer sweaters it should seem so unbelievable. Truth is often stranger than fiction.)
One would not expect that such a humbling event in the history of a nation to be happily recounted; but that it is not referred to in any other document does not take away from the fact that it is in the Bible… which should be held as a prime source and not one that must bow to human history-making, treated like an inferior document that must continually prove itself against other, more “reputable’ sources. The onus should be to prove that it did NOT happen, rather than proving that it did. Faith should be in the fore. (I realize the Church leaves the interpretation open - i am just encouraging people against the leap to fictionalizing Truth.)
I think James Kurt provides the best advice. To approach Scripture as the living Word of God instead of an object to be dissected in a laboratory is more likely to lead us to a deeper love of God. Remember that we are often admonished “fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom”
Robert, reading your post made me sad. We are in a difficult time in our culture regarding marriages that quickly turn from ecstasy to agony. Maybe we could see that same demon present in these marriages that were in the marriages of the 6 dead husbands of Sarah. If only we followed the advice of Raphael, praying in our marriage beds for holy intimacy - for truly loving the other as a child of God - as a brother or sister in Christ - then that demon which destroys marriages would have little power. Tobit is such an amazing example of true masculinity - facing death - but trusting in God’s word (through the Angel) and then saying yes and praying for help to fully commit - then loving the one he was given in a holy way. WOW!! What a MAN!!!
“The clues in the text strongly suggest this, as when Tobit is named as the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure out of ancient mideast folklore.”
I guess this bit about the War Between the States ending with the South’s surrender is fiction, too, since the Union Army was allegedly led by one Ulysses, a figure out of near east folklore.
After all, it is TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED for Jews to choose names from history or folklore for their children, right?
James, just to clarify. I have absolutely no problem with anyone reading the Scriptures as it reads to them. Who am I to impose restrictions given that the Church leaves people who have some competence in Biblical interpretation free to interpret, just as she does so in relation to the natural sciences.
Further, I believe that when certain men say certain words over some bread and wine, they become the body and blood of Jesus, so I (and people like me) don’t have a problem of faith in this regard, and believing or not that Job, or Daniel, or Jonah, or Tobit or Esther really existed and led substantially the lives attributed to them has nothing to do (a) with the virtue of faith any more than believing that the earth orbits irregularly around the sun is a matter of faith, and (b) with how “believable” it is.
That said, any reading of the text must justify itself in relation to that text. So, in relation to much of the Old Testament, the questions are (a) Is there any reason to believe that somebody writing in 600 or 500 or 150 BC was planning to write history in the modern sense? (b) Does the fact that it is not a history in the modern (New Cambridge Modern History of the Ancient Near East) sense still leave it with some historical validity? and(c) What genre of writing is this?
Now, there are several clues to genre and dating within the Scriptures. All I would contend is that the indication is that Daniel is an apocalypse written in response to the Maccabean crisis, Tobit is an exilic novella, Job is a meditation on the problem of evil, Esther a revenge fantasy, and that Jonah is a satire written in response to the Ezra-Nehemiah school of Judaism. You are free to disagree with any or all of this, but if you do, there need to be well-argued textual reasons for your opinion.
Bob, I thought I did give textual reasons for my points. (e.g. if Jesus says: “the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah”, then, my thought is that the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah…) I guess you can ask for clarification if you like. One additional thing that comes up from your list re Esther - so, you are saying that the source for a major Jewish feast (Purim) comes from a “revenge fantasy” rather than an actual saving of the Jews from annihilation?
I should clarify a couple of things. First, re your question about faith. My principal point here re faith comes from the question - Why is the historical validity of these books being questioned? The reasons that I have seen given seem to be founded on a lack of faith, a sense that what the books say could NOT have actually happened (Jonah could not have been swallowed by a whale, etc.), and so they must be fictional. A secondary factor that seems to be involved is a shallow reading of the texts, often coupled with the view that the Bible is no different than any other book or mythology. This shows a lack of faith in that it belies a disbelief in divine authorship - that God is the principal author.
Also re history. If by saying certain books of the Bible are not history you mean that they are not subject to the flaws that history (written by flawed men usually with particular agendas - history is written by the victors, as they say), then I would wholeheartedly agree. The Bible transcends history; it is. I would argue, the truest of histories.
Let’s take an example that is upon us this day and this week. Pres. Obama is presented and as things go will be recognized as a great champion of human rights. That is one history, and there will be much proof for it centuries from now for this is the story found in most media. But is he? Is he a great fighter for woman’s rights, for example? Let us ask how God sees it. Does he ignore the millions of unborn children killed with the president’s approval and indeed considerable encouragement? Does he care nothing for their rights? Is he blind to the wounds suffered by women who have been victims of abortion, which one might argue are in fact threatening to destroy her womanhood? Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Friday there will be perhaps a half million people in the same area the inauguration has just taken place. But what media coverage will there be of it? I have seen reports that focus on a dozen of pro-choice persons present and virtually ignored the hundreds of thousands marching. The March is remarkably ignored by the media.. and so may well be ignored by history. Will we then be correct say it did not happen? Just one example of how history can often not be trusted.
My point is that the question of whether the Bible is history or science or not should not come up at all, but if it does the Bible should be recognized as superior to history and science, not an inferior fantasy. Bob, also, re faith, do you think that saying that Jonah or Daniel did not exist (aside from being untrue) does nothing to the faith of simple people who have held these as actual persons? Do you not think it serves the deconstruction of the rest of the Word of God, leading in the end to the doubting of even Jesus’ historicity - as has not been uncommon among “believers”, I’m sure you know? If someone is going to make such claims about any book of the Bible, he should have a very good, very clear reason for sowing such doubt. I do not see those reasons. So let it be.
Finally, a small anecdote. I think the principle problem with modern scholarship is that those commenting and developing theories re the books of the Bible do not READ the Bible. The Bible is a book that must be read and reread - it is an infinite source of wisdom and those who just scratch the surface (and trade their scratches with one another) are very apt to lack wisdom and present a false wisdom. Oh, the anecdote: When I was writing a book of exposition on the readings of Mass, the technique I found myself using was to read the readings three times. (I recommend everyone try this.) Invariably the first reading just scratched the surface and the readings often seemed disparate; in the second the readings began to show relation to one another; by the third I had inevitably found a word, a theme to focus on that spanned the readings - and was now so obvious. (The ultimate reason for this is that ALL of the Bible is one Word.) It was most remarkable to watch what had seemed to have no commonality become so clearly one voice, one word, one theme….
Anyway, God Bless!
(Note: podcasts, and text, of the above-mentioned book (which has imprimatur) may be found at hermitinthecity.libsyn.com)
Bob, I thought I did give textual reasons for my points. (e.g. if Jesus says: “the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah”, then, my thought is that the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah…) I guess you can ask for clarification if you like. One additional thing that comes up from your list re Esther - so, you are saying that the source for a major Jewish feast (Purim) comes from a “revenge fantasy” rather than an actual saving of the Jews from annihilation?
I should clarify a couple of things. First, re your question about faith. My principal point here re faith comes from the question - Why is the historical validity of these books being questioned? The reasons that I have seen given seem to be founded on a lack of faith, a sense that what the books say could NOT have actually happened (Jonah could not have been swallowed by a whale, etc.), and so they must be fictional. A secondary factor that seems to be involved is a shallow reading of the texts, often coupled with the view that the Bible is no different than any other book or mythology. This shows a lack of faith in that it belies a disbelief in divine authorship - that God is the principal author.
Also re history. If by saying certain books of the Bible are not history you mean that they are not subject to the flaws that history (written by flawed men usually with particular agendas - history is written by the victors, as they say), then I would wholeheartedly agree. The Bible transcends history; it is. I would argue, the truest of histories.
Let’s take an example that is upon us this day and this week. Pres. Obama is presented and as things go will be recognized as a great champion of human rights. That is one history, and there will be much proof for it centuries from now for this is the story found in most media. But is he? Is he a great fighter for woman’s rights, for example? Let us ask how God sees it. Does he ignore the millions of unborn children killed with the president’s approval and indeed considerable encouragement? Does he care nothing for their rights? Is he blind to the wounds suffered by women who have been victims of abortion, which one might argue are in fact threatening to destroy her womanhood? Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Friday there will be perhaps a half million people in the same area the inauguration has just taken place. But what media coverage will there be of it? I have seen reports that focus on a dozen of pro-choice persons present and virtually ignored the hundreds of thousands marching. The March is remarkably ignored by the media.. and so may well be ignored by history. Will we then be correct say it did not happen? Just one example of how history can often not be trusted.
My point is that the question of whether the Bible is history or science or not should not come up at all, but if it does the Bible should be recognized as superior to history and science, not an inferior fantasy. Bob, also, re faith, do you think that saying that Jonah or Daniel did not exist (aside from being untrue) does nothing to the faith of simple people who have held these as actual persons? Do you not think it serves the deconstruction of the rest of the Word of God, leading in the end to the doubting of even Jesus’ historicity - as has not been uncommon among “believers”, I’m sure you know? If someone is going to make such claims about any book of the Bible, he should have a very good, very clear reason for sowing such doubt. I do not see those reasons. So let it be.
Finally, a small anecdote. I think the principle problem with modern scholarship is that those commenting and developing theories re the books of the Bible do not READ the Bible. The Bible is a book that must be read and reread - it is an infinite source of wisdom and those who just scratch the surface (and trade their scratches with one another) are very apt to lack wisdom and present a false wisdom. Oh, the anecdote: When I was writing a book of exposition on the readings of Mass, the technique I found myself using was to read the readings three times. (I recommend everyone try this.) Invariably the first reading just scratched the surface and the readings often seemed disparate; in the second the readings began to show relation to one another; by the third I had inevitably found a word, a theme to focus on that spanned the readings - and was now so obvious. (The ultimate reason for this is that ALL of the Bible is one Word.) It was most remarkable to watch what had seemed to have no commonality become so clearly one voice, one word, one theme….
Anyway, God Bless!
Bob, I sent a (long) response, which seems currently to be at the censor… maybe a short addendum (preamble): it seems to me that modern scholars look at Scripture and judge it by a modern sensibility, one might say a “Star Wars” mentality. Their vision is colored by the specters of the age, the images and theorems that are all-encompassing. This is why, I believe, one needs really to be immersed in Scripture in order to understand Scripture, to see it through the eyes of Scripture, of the Word, of GOD, if you will, rather than man. (I hope the other comments make it through…)
Maybe I should try this in pieces - 1 (of 3?)
Bob, I thought I did give textual reasons for my points. (e.g. if Jesus says: “the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah”, then, my thought is that the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah…) I guess you can ask for clarification if you like. One additional thing that comes up from your list re Esther - so, you are saying that the source for a major Jewish feast (Purim) comes from a “revenge fantasy” rather than an actual saving of the Jews from annihilation?
I should clarify a couple of things. First, re your question about faith. My principal point here re faith comes from the question - Why is the historical validity of these books being questioned? The reasons that I have seen given seem to be founded on a lack of faith, a sense that what the books say could NOT have actually happened (Jonah could not have been swallowed by a whale, etc.), and so they must be fictional. A secondary factor that seems to be involved is a shallow reading of the texts, often coupled with the view that the Bible is no different than any other book or mythology. This shows a lack of faith in that it belies a disbelief in divine authorship - that God is the principal author.
2 (of 3?)
Also re history. If by saying certain books of the Bible are not history you mean that they are not subject to the flaws that history (written by flawed men usually with particular agendas - history is written by the victors, as they say), then I would wholeheartedly agree. The Bible transcends history; it is. I would argue, the truest of histories.
Let’s take an example that is upon us this day and this week. The president is presented and as things go will be recognized as a great champion of human rights. That is one history, and there will be much proof for it centuries from now for this is the story found in most media. But is he? Is he a great fighter for woman’s rights, for example? Let us ask how God sees it. Does he ignore the millions of unborn children killed with the president’s approval and indeed considerable encouragement? Does he care nothing for their rights? Is he blind to the wounds suffered by women who have been victims of abortion, which one might argue are in fact threatening to destroy her womanhood? Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Friday there will be perhaps a half million people in the same area the inauguration has just taken place. But what media coverage will there be of it? I have seen reports that focus on a dozen of pro-choice persons present and virtually ignored the hundreds of thousands marching. The March is remarkably ignored by the media.. and so may well be ignored by history. Will we then be correct say it did not happen? (Just one example of how history can often not be trusted.)
2 (of 3?)
Also re history. If by saying certain books of the Bible are not history you mean that they are not subject to the flaws that history (written by flawed men usually with particular agendas - history is written by the victors, as they say), then I would wholeheartedly agree. The Bible transcends history; it is. I would argue, the truest of histories.
3 (of 4?)
history, cont.
Let’s take an example that is upon us this day and this week. the president is presented and as things go will be recognized as a great champion of human rights. That is one history, and there will be much proof for it centuries from now for this is the story found in most media. But is he? Is he a great fighter for woman’s rights, for example? Let us ask how God sees it. Does he ignore the millions of unborn children killed with the president’s approval and indeed considerable encouragement? Does he care nothing for their rights? Is he blind to the wounds suffered by women who have been victims of abortion, which one might argue are in fact threatening to destroy her womanhood? Today is the anniversary of r v w. Friday there will be perhaps a half million people in the same area the inauguration has just taken place. But what media coverage will there be of it? I have seen reports that focus on a dozen of pro-choice persons present and virtually ignored the hundreds of thousands marching. The march is remarkably ignored by the media.. and so may well be ignored by history. Will we then be correct say it did not happen? ( Just one example of how history can often not be trusted.)
4 (of 4?) - could not get part 3 through…
My point is that the question of whether the Bible is history or science or not should not come up at all, but if it does the Bible should be recognized as superior to history and science, not an inferior fantasy. Bob, also, re faith, do you think that saying that Jonah or Daniel did not exist (aside from being untrue) does nothing to the faith of simple people who have held these as actual persons? Do you not think it serves the deconstruction of the rest of the Word of God, leading in the end to the doubting of even Jesus’ historicity - as has not been uncommon among “believers”, I’m sure you know? If someone is going to make such claims about any book of the Bible, he should have a very good, very clear reason for sowing such doubt. I do not see those reasons. So let it be.
Finally, a small anecdote. I think the principle problem with modern scholarship is that those commenting and developing theories re the books of the Bible do not READ the Bible. The Bible is a book that must be read and reread - it is an infinite source of wisdom and those who just scratch the surface (and trade their scratches with one another) are very apt to lack wisdom and present a false wisdom. Oh, the anecdote: When I was writing a book of exposition on the readings of Mass, the technique I found myself using was to read the readings three times. (I recommend everyone try this.) Invariably the first reading just scratched the surface and the readings often seemed disparate; in the second the readings began to show relation to one another; by the third I had inevitably found a word, a theme to focus on that spanned the readings - and was now so obvious. (The ultimate reason for this is that ALL of the Bible is one Word.) It was most remarkable to watch what had seemed to have no commonality become so clearly one voice, one word, one theme….
Anyway, God Bless!
4 (of 4?) - could not get part 3 through…
My point is that the question of whether the Bible is history or science or not should not come up at all, but if it does the Bible should be recognized as superior to history and science, not an inferior fantasy. Bob, also, re faith, do you think that saying that Jonah or Daniel did not exist (aside from being untrue) does nothing to the faith of simple people who have held these as actual persons? Do you not think it serves the deconstruction of the rest of the Word of God, leading in the end to the doubting of even Jesus’ historicity - as has not been uncommon among “believers”, I’m sure you know? If someone is going to make such claims about any book of the Bible, he should have a very good, very clear reason for sowing such doubt. I do not see those reasons. So let it be.
5 (of 5?)
Finally, a small anecdote (hah!). I think the principle problem with modern scholarship is that those commenting and developing theories re the books of the Bible do not READ the Bible. The Bible is a book that must be read and reread - it is an infinite source of wisdom and those who just scratch the surface (and trade their scratches with one another) are very apt to lack wisdom and present a false wisdom. Oh, the anecdote: When I was writing a book of exposition on the readings of Mass, the technique I found myself using was to read the readings three times. (I recommend everyone try this.) Invariably the first reading just scratched the surface and the readings often seemed disparate; in the second the readings began to show relation to one another; by the third I had inevitably found a word, a theme to focus on that spanned the readings - and was now so obvious. (The ultimate reason for this is that ALL of the Bible is one Word.) It was most remarkable to watch what had seemed to have no commonality become so clearly one voice, one word, one theme….
Anyway, God Bless!
(Note: podcasts, and text, of the above-mentioned book (which has imprimatur) may be found at hermitinthecity.libsyn.com)
3 (of 5)
Let’s take an example that is upon us this day and this week. the president is presented and as things go will be recognized as a great champion of human rights. That is one history, and there will be much proof for it centuries from now for this is the story found in most media. But is he? Is he a great fighter for woman’s rights, for example? Let us ask how God sees it. Does he ignore the millions of unborn children killed with the president’s approval and indeed considerable encouragement? Does he care nothing for their rights? Is he blind to the wounds suffered by women who have been victims of abortion, which one might argue are in fact threatening to destroy her womanhood? Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Friday there will be perhaps a half million people in the same area the inauguration has just taken place. But what media coverage will there be of it? I have seen reports that focus on a dozen of pro-choice persons present and virtually ignored the hundreds of thousands marching. The March is remarkably ignored by the media.. and so may well be ignored by history. Will we then be correct say it did not happen?
To the reader, It seems your real battle is with true “faith”, not with Tobit or Tobias. Is it really so hard to believe that the God who had Nahaam (Sp?) go to a river and dunk several times to heal his leprosy would use a fish caught in a river to heal Tobit? Is it fairy tales that demons are expelled? Exorcism is a rite used to expel demons. Oh yea of little faith. As to Satan and power over life and death, it isn’t clear if the woman is doing the killing or if a demon actually does it. So it may be the woman was the person the demon inspired to commit the murders. In Job, God gave Satan power to do whatever he wanted except to kill Job. God’s ways are not man’s ways and we are just creatures. Sometimes we forget our littleness and His greatness. Also re another comment by another poster, God is light and in Him there is no darkness, so St. Raphael is NOT lying. He is, however following God’s command. Like Gabriel, Raphael does God’s will as God wants it done. God wanted to see the hearts of Tobit and Tobias so He wanted Raphael to withhold his true stature from them. God was putting them to the test. That is not lying.
Moderators on regular blogs? Thats new.
Sorry for the redundant posts… I’m afraid my lack of patience is on display.
I posted a comment that was marked “spam” that needed to be reviewed. Its been over 24 hours. Didn’t even think comments to blogs were moderated or so I was told by NCR. Is there a problem?
Apologies. Just saw the comment posted, up at the date it was sent.
I agree with Mark Shea that the Scripture is not there to affirm our thoughts and choices but to reveal divine truths to us in God’s own terms and ours. The prayer and his approaching his wife Sara in the first night are examples the young couples of today’s world immersed in pleasure culture, has to ponder and follow. God has his plans and ways to teach us morals
Tobit is a wonderful love story and commentary on the power of prayer, but not only that, Tobit prefigures the coming of Christ. God heard the prayer of Tobias and Sarah at the same time. They were broken and in pain, ready to give up; God heard the cry of the poor and sent the healer Saint Raphael to assist the heir in his mission to assume his rightful role as the bridegroom at the marriage feast and to receive his inheritance. Woman is released from Satan’s power and Tobit, representing the patriarchs, is able to see again and participate in the glorious return of the victorious Son. And don’t forget another great fish story in the Gospel of Matthew when Jesus sends Peter to catch a fish that miraculously yields the coin to pay the temple tax.
Here’s what comes up under your blog about conspiracy theories:
“The time period for commenting on this article has expired.”
( It must be a conspiracy…)
:)
Whew! Lots of comments, but one question I’ll ask, since no one else did. Raphael says that failing to perform brother-in-law marriage gets the death penalty. (Tobit 6:13, JB.) Is that supported by scripture- the Law? If not, is that a valid test for the origin of Raphael, “the holy angel of the Lord [God, the lawgiver]” as Tobit 3:25 claims?
Or, if his information is incorrect- unscriptural- can we trust the rest?
Robert Young: Jehovah? Not a romantic? Bite your tongue! Genesis 2:23 ff. What do you think ‘cleaving unto’ includes? Gen 24:67, JB: “Then Isaac took her into his tent. He married Rebekah and made her his wife. And in his love for her, Isaac was consoled for the loss of his mother.” Married her and then fell in love with her.
Doug, it certainly was so that the closest relative had the right to marry her, and that going against this would be a serious offense. I think one can presume that the penalty of death was part of the Talmud, the law, at that time, and that Raguel would have known this and thus been inclined to follow it and so give his daughter to Tobias, despite his reservations (his fear for Tobias’ life), as the angel says.
To the person using the JFK example to show that Raphael could still exist. I think that’s a poor example since we actually have historical and empirical and inherant data that he actually existed. There’s not much to go on besides Magisterial Belief and the Canon of Saints that St. Raphael exists. Therefore, you can’t really use the example of a fiction on JFK since most people, unless they’re a conspiracy theorist or loony, believe he existed and know he existed.
James, “Doug, it certainly was so that the closest relative had the right to marry her, and that going against this would be a serious offense.” True.
“I think one can presume that the penalty of death was part of the Talmud, the law, at that time” Talmud is later tradition; Torah is Jehovah’s law.
Presumption is a sin, right? :-)
Doug, sorry for the mixup on the books… I don’t think sin would be attached to the presumption being made here. What I was trying to say is that a. it would be a serious offense, and b. it certainly COULD have been punishable by death at the time of this writing. If it could have been so and if the Bible says it is so then I think the onus would be on the person questioning the Word to show that it is otherwise.
James Kurt writes: “If it could have been so and if the Bible says it is so then I think the onus would be on the person questioning the Word to show that it is otherwise.”
Not questioning the Word, but using it: Ruth chapter 4 which answers both “could have” and “Bible says”.
Raphael, the ‘messenger of God’ was wrong, per the Douay/JB/St Joseph et al. per a book written long before Tobit.
Other examples also. Ruth 4 obviates the need to go to them, isn’t it so?
You mixup of Torah and Talmud (which I forgive BTW :-) ) is a common one, but it reveals more than you may think about your attitude toward “the Word”, as you yourself call it. The former is “the Word of God”; the latter is “the tradition of men”. Mr 7:13
Isn’t that a common non-Catholic complaint about Magisterium vs. “... the Bible, which we Catholics gave you!” ? Do you see an example of that here? Is passing around a sandal the same ‘penalty’ as death?
Doug, Tobit is the Word of God, the law which you are questioning is the tradition of men. You are questioning the Word of God because of your questions regarding the traditions of men. That tradition of men could have changed over time as it is the tradition of men and not the Word of God. We do not know what that tradition may have held (and so, what Raquel may have understood his refusal to entail) in the time of Tobit. Also, you should see that in Ruth the right to marry is freely given up to Boaz; in Tobit it is a question of DENYING a man his right. The situations are not the same.
James, perhaps I wasn’t clear.
The Torah is the first five books of the Bible, presumed to have been put in writing under inspiration by Moses or his immediate successors. All People of the Book acknowledge this. Therefore all parts of the Torah should touch the lives of Jews, Christians and Muslims, at the very least to give them insight into Jehovah’s thinking. (E.g., should a Christian tattoo his body or not? Not mentioned in the NT, but there’s a useful clue in the Law.)
The Talmud OTOH is a many, many-volumed commentary on scripture and other aspects of Jewishness, written to be used by Jews in their daily lives. I put Tobit, Mark, Corinthians et al. outside both when I said that Torah is Word and Talmud is tradition. (In fact, there are two main Talmudic traditions, from Bablyon and Jerusalem. More differences between them than between your Bible and mine. ) Glance into it and you’ll see.
Torah says that failing at brother-in-law marriage is a serious thing, but is NOT subject to the death penalty. The book of Ruth is useful in showing that between us two because both our bibles contain it, in the same form. The unnamed relative of Boaz did NOT die when he refused Ruth (for good reasons, from a landowner’s POV). He did lose the marvelous opportunity to help Jehovah carry out his purpose through the Messiah. Not a problem for Jehovah, who always ‘proves to be what he will prove to be’. He doesn’t make plans, he has purposes, so Boaz and Ruth got that privilege. But I digress.
When “Raphael” says that the death penalty applies, in your Bible but not in mine, I go to our common Bible for the correct answer, Genesis through Deuteronomy, according to the accepted and acknowledged word of God.
I do understand that several of the teachings in Tobit are useful in establishing RCC doctrine; you’re free to keep it if you want to.
Doug,
Didn’t know you were using a different Bible, that you were not Catholic…
Let me try to clarify what i am saying - There is the Torah, the Pentateuch, the Word of God… and then there are any number of traditions/laws that were developed from that and imposed upon it, interpretations of the Mosaic law, etc. In the passage from Tobit, Raphael is making the point that Raguel will have to give Sarah to Tobias because he has the right to her. If he refuses Tobias his right to Sarah, refuses to give him a woman who is rightfully his, Raguel knows that he will incur the death penalty - that this is according to the interpretation of the Mosaic law at that place and at that time (in Media during the exile). He is assuring Tobias that Raguel will have to give Sarah to him.
Again, the situation in Ruth is very different. In this case you do NOT have a man being potentially DENIED his right to a woman who by law he has every right to marry but a man FREELY GIVING UP that right to another man. So, you cannot make the link between these two passages. You cannot say because the man who gave up his right was not killed that the man who denied another man what he wanted and was his right should not be killed. Can you see that they are two distinctly different acts?
I asked you to prove what the Mosaic Law says about the denial of a man his right to marry because it is not specifically stated in the Torah, the Pentateuch, the Word of God which we both read. I said that barring this clear proof, there is no reason to doubt Raphael’s word in Tobit - which is to me the Word of God (I didn’t know it wasn’t accepted by you. Sorry.)
Another thought that I have had is that the law in question might have acquired increased severity during a time (and place) of exile, when the very existence of the people was in some jeopardy. To deny a man his right to procreate with a woman rightfully his own would have been an even more heinous act in such tenuous circumstances.
Peace of Christ!
James writes, “traditions/laws that were developed from that and imposed upon it,... that this is according to the interpretation of the Mosaic law at that place and at that time (in Media during the exile)... Another thought that I have had is that the law in question might have acquired increased severity”
which are the opinions and traditions of one man. They have the death penalty; God’s word does not.
I don’t accept the book of Tobit as inspired for some very good reasons: the above mentioned error by “an angel of God”, and many more laid out in Catholic commenters on Tobit. They list many inaccuracies as to time and place which are insurmountable if Tobit is to be taken as history. (All People of the Book take- or should take- the Torah as historical.) It is, therefore, useful in developing tradtions, which I don’t bother with.
Doug,
I don’t understand your response, particularly this passage -
“which are the opinions and traditions of one man. They have the death
penalty; God’s word does not.”
Who is the one man? Who are “they”? It seems they is referring to the traditions of men; the only one man I can think of is Moses, but that doesn’t fit. Beyond this question, I don’t understand at all what you are trying to say here.
Doug,
I guess I can address the phrase that is clear: “God’s Word does not.” God’s Word (except for Tobit) does not address the crime of a denying a man his right to marry a woman AT ALL. It does not present any penalty for such a crime; does not tell us anything. So how is Raphael wrong? Wrong in comparison to what? Are we to presume their was NO penalty? Is it not possible the penalty was death?
James, from my post of Feb 20, “Another thought that I have had is that the law in question might have acquired increased severity”
I quoted that from yours of Feb 19 and said it is the opinion of one man- yourself. No death penalty in scripture. I’ll stick with Jehovah speaking through Moses.
Since “Raphael’s” teaching goes far beyond that- and your own scholars say there are many other problems with the authenticity of Tobit- I stick with what seems to be Mr Shea’s view: Tobit is fiction. Since it claims on its face to be history, not parable, then it is rightly left out of an honestly-put-together Bible.
He also says, “I guess I see no reason why God could not inspire a folk tale that begins “Once upon a time”. Jesus told fictional stories all the time…”, at which point he mentions some parables. The other writers of the NT don’t use “Once upon a time” or anything like it for their histories of the record of early Christianity. Compare, for example, Luke 1:5 and 2:1,2.
Paul addressed fables and those who admire them at 1 Tim 6:4,5,20,21.
a) Tobit does not claim to be history. Indeed, it signals that it is not history by making Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, which is like making him the uncle of Jack the Giant Killer.
b) If using fiction to communicate somehow disqualifies a text, then the gospels, which are chockablock with fiction tales, are not inspired.
c) Paul is, of course, referring to Jewish legends which fictionalize the gospel and attempt to replace Jesus with gnostic legends about him. He is not condemning the creation of fiction nor its use by sacred writers.
Still there…
Doug,
As for your first/second paragraph, thanks for clarifying that.
As for the next - Still unsure how Raphael’s teaching can go beyond something we do not know the parameters of; nor of what else other scholars say that hasn’t been said here… but you are free to believe as you like, certainly.
As for the next point - as I mentioned before, Tobit does NOT begin (or continue) as a parable. It does not begin “once upon a time” nor does it speak in general of “a man” “a Samaritan” “a landowner” as parables do, but gives very specific information of a very specific man at a very specific place in a very specific time. But, again, you are free to believe or accept what you decide to believe to accept.
Mr. Shea,
a) Is it not possible that Tobit’s uncle could have been named for this very famous person (I wish you could answer this question since this seems to be your principle point of departure)?
b) Fiction does not disqualify a text, but isn’t there a problem when something that has been greatly accepted as history and is presented as history becomes interpreted as fiction for no solid reason (other than that things within it are too hard for the modern mind to believe)? There is fiction in the Bible, and it is clearly presented as such; the presence of fiction in Jesus’ parables or other stories does not mean one cannot just go around proclaiming whatever one feels to be fiction to be fiction, using this as a broad excuse for one’s interpretation.
(It’s funny, I look down at my table and I see that I have writing that I’ve done toward a book on the OT in front of me ready to be proofread… of course, it is the book of Tobit staring me in the face.)
Still there…
Doug,
As for your first/second paragraph, thanks for clarifying that.
As for the next - Still unsure how Raphael’s teaching can go beyond something we do not know the parameters of; nor of what else other scholars say that hasn’t been said here… but you are free to believe as you like, certainly.
As for the next point - as I mentioned before, Tobit does NOT begin (or continue) as a parable. It does not begin “once upon a time” nor does it speak in general of “a man” “a Samaritan” “a landowner” as parables do, but gives very specific information of a very specific man at a very specific place in a very specific time. But, again, you are free to believe or accept what you decide to believe to accept.
Mr. Shea,
a) Is it not possible that Tobit’s uncle could have been named for this very famous person (I wish you could answer this question since this seems to be your principle point of departure)?
b) Fiction does not disqualify a text, but isn’t there a problem when something that has been greatly accepted as history and is presented as history becomes interpreted as fiction for no solid reason (other than that things within it are too hard for the modern mind to believe)? There is fiction in the Bible, and it is clearly presented as such; the presence of fiction in Jesus’ parables or other stories does not mean one cannot just go around proclaiming whatever one feels to be fiction to be fiction, using this as a broad excuse for one’s interpretation.
(It’s funny, I look down at my table and I see that I have writing that I’ve done toward a book on the OT in front of me ready to be proofread… of course, it is the book of Tobit staring me in the face.)
Mr. Shea,
For what it’s worth, the next item on my agenda (after proofing writing on Tobit, et. al.) was to read a chapter of Orthodoxy - which i happened to see quoted in a blog of yours today. The chapter was 8 and i quickly came upon Chesterton’s discussion of the rejection of miracles by advocates of the New Theology. As the good man so aptly states, theirs is a “lifeless verbal prejudice” which has “nothing to do with the evidence for or against them.”
I would like to note that I do not care much either for the term “fiction” or the term “history” in speaking about Scripture - for it has none of their corruptions (the taint of human hands and minds). It is the Word of God and should be ready differently than any text. (The word i greatly prefer is prophecy.) I would suggest that when you flippantly equate the Word of God with Jack the Giant Killer (or any more respectable myth or fable), there is a certain disservice being done to the Word of God, unintentional though I’m sure it is.
I would that all could read the Word as it is, as a child, a faith filled child, might, without the artificial imposition of human limitations. Let it be, as it were.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.