Is the book of Tobit just fan fiction or real history?

[NathanH83]

If it’s fiction, then why did so many early churches declared it to be scripture?

 

[atpollard]

If it’s fiction, then why did so many early churches declared it to be scripture?

Stating facts not in evidence.
Which early churches declared Tobit to be SCRIPTURE?

 

[Josiah]

If it’s fiction, then why did so many early churches declared it to be scripture?

I know of only one that does; just one denomination out of perhaps 20,000. And that one not until the 16th Century.


And I know of NO church that declares a book to be Scripture if it has some accurate history in it. If such, their canon would have millions of books in it because there are a lot of books that contain accurate history. The tome would be difficult to carry.

 

[NathanH83]

Stating facts not in evidence.
Which early churches declared Tobit to be SCRIPTURE?

Rome in 382 AD.
Hippo in 393 AD.
Carthage in 397 AD.
And many more...

 

[NathanH83]

I know of only one that does; just one denomination out of perhaps 20,000. And that one not until the 16th Century.


And I know of NO church that declares a book to be Scripture if it has some accurate history in it. If such, their canon would have millions of books in it because there are a lot of books that contain accurate history. The tome would be difficult to carry.

Rome in 382 AD.
Hippo in 393 AD.
Carthage in 397 AD.
And many more...

 

[NathanH83]

What I’m wondering is if there’s historical problems with it. And if so, what are they?

 

[Josiah]

Rome in 382 AD.
Hippo in 393 AD.
Carthage in 397 AD....

None were ecumenical councils, all 3 were regional synods (they weren't even denominational meetings). And none of these was focused on declaring what is and is not canonical but rather on what may or may not be read in the Sunday lectionaries of their jurisdiction. NONE of these was even one denomination (out of at least 20,000) officially declaring any book to be anything even for just it itself uniquely/individiually. NONE of those regional, non-authoritative, synods declared anything to be canonical - nor did they have the authority to if they wanted to.

A few denominations have declared books to be "in" in SOME sense for at least something - but none before the 15th Century (and that not very authoritatively - it had to be redone in the 16th). The Roman Catholic Church (that one denomination but ONLY for it itself alone), the Anglican Church (that one denomination but only for it itself alone), the Reformed Confessions (for that denomination alone), the LDS (in the 19th Century) but none before this and none for any but itself alone. And not always all of them in the same sense.

 

[NathanH83]

None were ecumenical councils, all 3 were regional synods (they weren't even denominational meetings). And none of these was focused on declaring what is and is not canonical but rather on what may or may not be read in the Sunday lectionaries of their jurisdiction. NONE of these was even one denomination (out of at least 20,000) officially declaring any book to be anything even for just it itself uniquely/individiually. NONE of those regional, non-authoritative, synods declared anything to be canonical - nor did they have the authority to if they wanted to.

A few denominations have declared books to be "in" in SOME sense for at least something - but none before the 15th Century (and that not very authoritatively - it had to be redone in the 16th). The Roman Catholic Church (that one denomination but ONLY for it itself alone), the Anglican Church (that one denomination but only for it itself alone), the Reformed Confessions (for that denomination alone), the LDS (in the 19th Century) but none before this and none for any but itself alone. And not always all of them in the same sense.

Can you please address the question please? Nothing that you’ve said here addresses the question of whether or not Tobit is historically accurate, or just a work of fiction.

 

[atpollard]

If it’s fiction, then why did so many early churches declared it to be scripture?

Since you answered my objection, I will answer your question.

To the best of my knowledge (and I admit to not being an expert on the book of Tobit), it is an uninspired work of history that contains a mixture of true and false information. In that regard it is useful, but it is not “God breathed” and falls into the exact same class of work as the Histories of Josephus and the Conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar.

As an important historical document, it should be subject to rigorous textural examination to determine whether it was in fact likely written by the alleged author at the alleged date. “Fan fiction” (as you called it) was a popular literary form at many times in history, just as it is today, and we must exercise caution not to include any pseudo-fiction as Holy Scripture.

I have taken your word that these specific churches declared Tobit actual “God breathed” Scripture on a par with the Torah of Moses and the Gospel of John and the Letters of Paul. I would have preferred an actual quote from a referenced source that could be verified to prove that they held Tobit in such esteem. However, even if such a quote exists, scripture cannot contradict scripture, so Tobit would need to be found in theological agreement with all of the inspired scripture that had come before it. I am willing to accept the decision of the early ecumenical councils and the writings from the ECF about which books are “scripture” without some deep need to second guess them.

 

[Josiah]

If it’s fiction, then why did so many early churches declared it to be scripture?

We're still waiting for all the "many" "early" "churches" (parishes, denominations?) "declared it to be SCRIPTURE?"

It's included in the lectionary of some western congregations..... but those regional, non-authoritative synods never "declared" anything (they had no authority) and they were not any "church" (parish or denomination) and I've seen zero evidence any even gave a non-authoritative, unofficial opinion that Tobit was the inerrant, verbal-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norma normans for theology.... it certainly is a "writing" but there are millions (billions?) of writings that aren't canonical Scripture.

 

[NathanH83]

Stating facts not in evidence.
Which early churches declared Tobit to be SCRIPTURE?

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books"

-Council of Rome Decree of Pope Damasus (382 AD)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome




"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are* as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ."

-Council of Hippo Canon 36 (393 AD)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo





"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ."

-Council of Carthage III Canon 47 (397 AD)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397

 

[NathanH83]

Since you answered my objection, I will answer your question.

To the best of my knowledge (and I admit to not being an expert on the book of Tobit), it is an uninspired work of history that contains a mixture of true and false information. In that regard it is useful, but it is not “God breathed” and falls into the exact same class of work as the Histories of Josephus and the Conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar.

As an important historical document, it should be subject to rigorous textural examination to determine whether it was in fact likely written by the alleged author at the alleged date. “Fan fiction” (as you called it) was a popular literary form at many times in history, just as it is today, and we must exercise caution not to include any pseudo-fiction as Holy Scripture.

I have taken your word that these specific churches declared Tobit actual “God breathed” Scripture on a par with the Torah of Moses and the Gospel of John and the Letters of Paul. I would have preferred an actual quote from a referenced source that could be verified to prove that they held Tobit in such esteem. However, even if such a quote exists, scripture cannot contradict scripture, so Tobit would need to be found in theological agreement with all of the inspired scripture that had come before it. I am willing to accept the decision of the early ecumenical councils and the writings from the ECF about which books are “scripture” without some deep need to second guess them.

Can you please point out an actual historical error with the book of Tobit?

I’m not talking about theological errors, based upon your interpretation of certain theological statements made throughout the book.

I’m asking about undeniable historical errors.

You know, like the way the Book of Mormon says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem when he was actually born in Bethlehem. Or the way that the Book of Mormon says horses existed in South America at a time when they hadn’t been introduced to the area yet.

What actual historical errors are there with the book of Tobit?

Do you know of anything specifically?

Have you even read Tobit?

 

[atpollard]

Can you please point out an actual historical error with the book of Tobit?

I’m not talking about theological errors, based upon your interpretation of certain theological statements made throughout the book.

I’m asking about undeniable historical errors.

You know, like the way the Book of Mormon says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem when he was actually born in Bethlehem. Or the way that the Book of Mormon says horses existed in South America at a time when they hadn’t been introduced to the area yet.

What actual historical errors are there with the book of Tobit?

Do you know of anything specifically?

Have you even read Tobit?

I have never read Tobit. I was raised atheist and first read a RSV bible laying around the house that had been given to me by a Lutheran Pastor when I made an appointment to ask some questions. Then I read an NIV translation of the Bible used by the Church of God where I was baptized. Later I purchased an NASB bible to read when I wanted something closer to “word for word” than “thought for thought” translation. None of those Bibles included Tobit so I never read it.

Your question seems irrelevant to me. I suspect Josephus’ Histories contains no historic errors either, but it denies the Theological truth that Jesus is the Messiah. By your yardstick, we have no reason to exclude the writings of Josephus from Scripture, either. Respectfully, theological error is EVERYTHING when acknowledging “God breathed” Holy Scripture.

No, I cannot present a historical error in Tobit; nor can I confirm a single historic truth in Tobit. I have never read Tobit ... nor will I ever read it as scripture with an eye towards historic accuracy and my mind closed to possible theological lies.

 

[NathanH83]

I have never read Tobit. I was raised atheist and first read a RSV bible laying around the house that had been given to me by a Lutheran Pastor when I made an appointment to ask some questions. Then I read an NIV translation of the Bible used by the Church of God where I was baptized. Later I purchased an NASB bible to read when I wanted something closer to “word for word” than “thought for thought” translation. None of those Bibles included Tobit so I never read it.

Your question seems irrelevant to me. I suspect Josephus’ Histories contains no historic errors either, but it denies the Theological truth that Jesus is the Messiah. By your yardstick, we have no reason to exclude the writings of Josephus from Scripture, either. Respectfully, theological error is EVERYTHING when acknowledging “God breathed” Holy Scripture.

No, I cannot present a historical error in Tobit; nor can I confirm a single historic truth in Tobit. I have never read Tobit ... nor will I ever read it as scripture with an eye towards historic accuracy and my mind closed to possible theological lies.

Take the time to read it sometime. It’s a fun story. It would make an excellent movie. Whether it’s scripture or not, I’m just curious if it really happened.

In Hebrews 13, Paul talks about men who entertained angels unaware. I never knew what Paul was talking about. Nothing in the Old Testament talks about men entertaining angels unaware. I wondered if Paul was talking about a personal friend he knew.

But after reading the book of Tobit, I found that this story clearly talks about men entertaining an Angel unaware. The Angel was Raphael, but Tobit and his son thought the angel was just a distant relative named Azariah. Only at the end of the story does the angel reveal who he really is.

I wonder if Paul might have been referring to Tobit in Hebrews 13.