TOBIT -by NathanH83

[Andrew]

Short video
https://youtu.be/dKdr0l4lC78

Thoughts?

 

[Lamb]

That's really bad rap.

Tobit is not canon according to Protestants because it doesn't fit the proper criteria. Not for the reason that the creator of this video suggests.

 

[atpollard]

Thoughts?

Sure ...

Tobit was written in the 2nd Century BC describing events in Nineveh shortly after 722 B.C. That means that Tobit was not written by Tobit, but by someone living 500 years later. Would you trust a brand new book written by Martin Luther himself in the year 2000?

Tobit 1:15 states that Sennacherib was Shalmaneser’s son. This is incorrect since he was the son of Sargon II

Tobit implies that he was alive during the reign of Jeroboam I (about 930 B.C.), and at his death he was reported to be 117 years old. The math is off by over a hundred years since he describes events in 722 BC.

Tobit claims that almsgiving alone “will save you from death”. Paul states in Galatians 2:15, that man is justified (saved) “by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.” In John 3:16, Jesus says that “whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” So either Tobit is correct and Jesus and Paul are wrong, or Paul and Jesus are correct and Tobit is wrong. One of them is not inspired by God.

... Those are my thoughts on Tobit.

 

[NathanH83]

Tobit does not claim to be alive in the days of Jeroboam.

 

[NathanH83]

That's really bad rap.

Tobit is not canon according to Protestants because it doesn't fit the proper criteria. Not for the reason that the creator of this video suggests.

The Jews added Tobit to the Bible, just like any other book of scripture.

 

[NathanH83]

Sure ...

Tobit was written in the 2nd Century BC describing events in Nineveh shortly after 722 B.C. That means that Tobit was not written by Tobit, but by someone living 500 years later. Would you trust a brand new book written by Martin Luther himself in the year 2000?

Tobit 1:15 states that Sennacherib was Shalmaneser’s son. This is incorrect since he was the son of Sargon II

Tobit implies that he was alive during the reign of Jeroboam I (about 930 B.C.), and at his death he was reported to be 117 years old. The math is off by over a hundred years since he describes events in 722 BC.

Tobit claims that almsgiving alone “will save you from death”. Paul states in Galatians 2:15, that man is justified (saved) “by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.” In John 3:16, Jesus says that “whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” So either Tobit is correct and Jesus and Paul are wrong, or Paul and Jesus are correct and Tobit is wrong. One of them is not inspired by God.

... Those are my thoughts on Tobit.

Tobit was translated into Greek in the 2nd century. That's not when it was authored in Hebrew.

 

[Lamb]

The Jews added Tobit to the Bible, just like any other book of scripture.

"Tobit, also called The Book Of Tobias, apocryphal work (noncanonical for Jews and Protestants)" https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tobit-biblical-literature

 

[NathanH83]

"Tobit, also called The Book Of Tobias, apocryphal work (noncanonical for Jews and Protestants)" https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tobit-biblical-literature

Your link is inaccurate. Tobit wasn't a Jew. He was an Israelite from the tribe of Naphtali. He was of the northern kingdom of Israel, not the southern kingdom of Judah.

And yes, it's true that modern-day Jews don't accept it. But Jews before Christ did because they added it to the Greek Septuagint.

 

[Lamb]

Your link is inaccurate. Tobit wasn't a Jew. He was an Israelite from the tribe of Naphtali. He was of the northern kingdom of Israel, not the southern kingdom of Judah.

And yes, it's true that modern-day Jews don't accept it. But Jews before Christ did because they added it to the Greek Septuagint.

Feel free to correct the Encyclopedia Britannica that has been a resource for facts since 1768.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sure ...

Tobit was written in the 2nd Century BC describing events in Nineveh shortly after 722 B.C. That means that Tobit was not written by Tobit, but by someone living 500 years later. Would you trust a brand new book written by Martin Luther himself in the year 2000?

Tobit 1:15 states that Sennacherib was Shalmaneser’s son. This is incorrect since he was the son of Sargon II

Tobit implies that he was alive during the reign of Jeroboam I (about 930 B.C.), and at his death he was reported to be 117 years old. The math is off by over a hundred years since he describes events in 722 BC.

Tobit claims that almsgiving alone “will save you from death”. Paul states in Galatians 2:15, that man is justified (saved) “by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.” In John 3:16, Jesus says that “whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” So either Tobit is correct and Jesus and Paul are wrong, or Paul and Jesus are correct and Tobit is wrong. One of them is not inspired by God.

... Those are my thoughts on Tobit.

It's interesting how easily the historical critical method of analysing holy scripture is applied by Protestants to a book like Tobit but rejected by Evangelical for each and every one of the books that Protestants say are canonical.

Tobit could just as easily be a work written in cuneiform around 700 BC and preserved until translated into Hebrew in 200 BC by someone. ...

It is obvious that Moses did not write the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch because when Moses is alleged to have lived there was no Hebrew script. If anything were written by Moses in or around the time of the Exodus story then it was written in some script from Egypt or Babylon but there's not a scrap of evidence that such is the case. Similarly "Tobit" may have written in Cuneiform only to be translated into Hebrew script 500 years after the original. But there's no evidence for that, just as there's none for Moses writing anything or David writing the psalms, or Solomon writing Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.

If available evidence is used to decide authorship of any part of the holy scriptures then Isaiah wasn't written in Isaiah's time, Daniel was not written in Daniel's time, Proverbs and the Song of Solomon were not written in Solomon's time nor the Psalms in David's time. The same applies to Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 minor Prophets. It is also true of the four canonical gospels, several of the letters attributed to saint Paul and to the letters of Peter, John, Jude, and James. They all have significant gaps between the first reliable evidence for their existence and the alleged time of writing.

What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, as it is said; thus the holy scriptures' canon is not decided by alleged scholarly research into when the parts of the scriptures were written. The canon of holy scripture was decided by people. For Catholics it was decided by Catholic Church councils in the late fourth century AD. For Jews and Protestants the Old Testament canon was decided by Jews some time after the sixth century AD and for Protestants the canon of the new testament was decided by Catholics in the late fourth century AD and affirmed by Protestants in the sixteenth century AD.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

 

[atpollard]

Tobit was translated into Greek in the 2nd century. That's not when it was authored in Hebrew.

Tobit was written in Aramaic in the 2nd Century BC and later translated into both Greek and Hebrew. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the only copies of Tobit were in Greek. Now we have fragments of the Aramaic and Hebrew translation that confirm the general accuracy of the Greek Translations.

Tobias is an inter-Testament book, and as all such books it is not inspired by God. That is what made John the Baptist such a big deal ... God had finally sent another Prophet to Israel (the 12 tribes) after a very long silence.

Jesus defined the scope of Scripture in his day and it did not include Tobit. What books the Alexandrians chose to translate is not the definitive guide to the Word of God ... the Word made flesh is.

 

[atpollard]

It's interesting how easily the historical critical method of analysing holy scripture is applied by Protestants to a book like Tobit but rejected by Evangelical for each and every one of the books that Protestants say are canonical.

1. That was just one of several points raised.

2. The grammar suggests that it was actually written in Aramaic and translated into other languages. Aramaic was the common language in the 2nd Century BC but not in the 8th Century BC.

3. Tobit quotes other scripture written after the 8th Century BC. Did the translator also insert anachronistic references or was the book written after the quoted verses?

In any event, unlike the books by Moses, Tobit contradicts the teaching of scripture quoted by Jesus as authoritative, thus refuting any claim to Divine Inspiration.

 

[MoreCoffee]

1. That was just one of several points raised.

2. The grammar suggests that it was actually written in Aramaic and translated into other languages. Aramaic was the common language in the 2nd Century BC but not in the 8th Century BC.

3. Tobit quotes other scripture written after the 8th Century BC. Did the translator also insert anachronistic references or was the book written after the quoted verses?

In any event, unlike the books by Moses, Tobit contradicts the teaching of scripture quoted by Jesus as authoritative, thus refuting any claim to Divine Inspiration.

Of course it does, the grammar and whatever else is used as evidence suggests that Moses had absolutely nothing to do with the Pentateuch. Isaiah had nothing to do with the book bearing his name, and Daniel was a mythical character in an ancient Hebrew novel.

 

[psalms 91]

Any piece of the bible you do believe MC? Or is it all a fable to you?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Any piece of the bible you do believe MC? Or is it all a fable to you?

I believe everything in the holy scriptures according to its intended meaning and intended purpose. I can quote a summary of my view for you if you like.

I hold that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16). In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

 

[psalms 91]

I thought so MC but you must realize that your take on these books call into question what you profess at least to unbelievers, seems to me just giving them more ammunition

 

[MoreCoffee]

I thought so MC but you must realize that your take on these books call into question what you profess at least to unbelievers, seems to me just giving them more ammunition

The reason for my posts to atpollard is to both show what comes from the type of critique he offered about Tobit and how devastating the results of the approach he used regarding Tobit are when it is applied to the rest of canonical holy scripture.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander it is said and that is so. Once one unleashes historical critical thinking on holy scripture there is no line that the method will not cross. If Tobit is "apocryphal" because of its alleged date of writing, language in which it was written, identity of its author and the other factors he cited as reasons to reject it then the same analysis applied to Matthew, 1Timothy, 1John, Genesis, Job, Proverbs and so on yields the same results as he said apply to Tobit.

The lesson to learn from historical critical analysis is that the scriptures are canonical, holy, and beneficial because of what they are and who inspired them - not because of their sources in history, human authorship, manuscript transmission and preservation. It is what they contain (read as intended and for the purposes for which each part is intended) that show them to be beneficial for instruction in righteousness and enables them to equip the people of God for every kind of good and godly work that they are called to undertake.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The lesson to learn from historical critical analysis is that the scriptures are canonical, holy, and beneficial because of what they are and who inspired them - not because of their sources in history, human authorship, manuscript transmission and preservation. It is what they contain (read as intended and for the purposes for which each part is intended) that show them to be beneficial for instruction in righteousness and enables them to equip the people of God for every kind of good and godly work that they are called to undertake.

Very good summary.
Glad I wrote it.
I may have uses for those words in other places.
A thumbs up for that little gem.

 

[Josiah]

The Jews added Tobit to the Bible, just like any other book of scripture.

Just quote the official, formal declaration of that by the Ruling Body of all Judaism to which all Jews submit. Give the date/place of the gathering. And quote from it.

Or your statement isn't true. It MAY be that SOME (entirely unknowable percentage) of JEWS read the book, used the book, quoted from the book - none of which means even that unknowable group of Jews regarded it as inerrant, fully-canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God equal to say the Pentateuch. It just means just that - SOME Jews read it, used it, quoted from it.




.

 

[NathanH83]

Tobit 1:15 states that Sennacherib was Shalmaneser’s son. This is incorrect since he was the son of Sargon II

Sennacherib WAS Shalmaneser’s son. You can’t fit the 17-year reign of Sargon into a 10 year window between Shalmaneser and Sennacherib. Sorry, but the math doesn’t work.