Why does the book of Revelation say that you can anoint your eyes with medicine to cure blindness?

[NathanH83]

Tobit was not included in the OT (Just like the tale of Gilgamesh), so it should not be included in the OT portion of the Bible.
Tobit does not meet the criteria for the books chosen to be included in the New Testament (just like Josephus‘ Histories), so it should not be included in the NT portion of the Bible.
Tobit was found by some to have some value for providing “spiritual and historic” context (like Maccabees) so it was included in the non-Testament section of some Bibles.

I do not see what the problem or issue is.

Revelation was written by the Apostle John and met the criteria for inclusion in the NT portion of the Bible.

I do not see what the problem or issue is.

Tobit was included in the Old Testament

 

[atpollard]

Tobit was included in the Old Testament

Some OT or all OT?
I am simply asking if it was moved to the Apocrypha in many Bibles (alongside Maccabees).

 

[atpollard]

I was talking about Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus. There’s other Bible manuscripts too. I don’t know a single one of them omitting Tobit. At least before the 1500’s. I’d love for someone to show one.

Jerome claimed that TOBIT was not part of the OT (Hagiographa) but belonged to the “άπόκρυφα” (Apocrypha).

The third order possesses the ἀγιόγραφα, and the first book begins from Job, the second from David...third is Solomon, having three books: Proverbs...Ecclesiastes...Song of Songs. Sixth is Daniel. Seventh Dabreajamin...which book among us is inscribed 1&2 Παραλειπομένων [i.e., Chronicles]. Eighth is Ezra, which also itself both among Greeks and Latins is divided into two books [= Ezra & Nehemiah]. Ninth is Esther. And so altogether the books of the Old Law are twenty-two, i.e., five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, nine of the Hagiographa. But some put Ruth and Cinoth [= Lamentations] among the ἀγιόγραφα, and reckon these books in the calculation of its number, and thus there would be twenty-four books of the ancient Law. ... This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a helmeted beginning for all the books which we are converted from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may know that whatever is outside these, should be put among the άπόκρυφα. Therefore Wisdom [of Solomon]...and the book of Jesus son of Sirach [= Ecclesiasticus], and Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd [of Hermas] are not in the canon.​

- Jerome, Introduction to Kings​

 

[NathanH83]

Jerome claimed that TOBIT was not part of the OT (Hagiographa) but belonged to the “άπόκρυφα” (Apocrypha).

The third order possesses the ἀγιόγραφα, and the first book begins from Job, the second from David...third is Solomon, having three books: Proverbs...Ecclesiastes...Song of Songs. Sixth is Daniel. Seventh Dabreajamin...which book among us is inscribed 1&2 Παραλειπομένων [i.e., Chronicles]. Eighth is Ezra, which also itself both among Greeks and Latins is divided into two books [= Ezra & Nehemiah]. Ninth is Esther. And so altogether the books of the Old Law are twenty-two, i.e., five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, nine of the Hagiographa. But some put Ruth and Cinoth [= Lamentations] among the ἀγιόγραφα, and reckon these books in the calculation of its number, and thus there would be twenty-four books of the ancient Law. ... This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a helmeted beginning for all the books which we are converted from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may know that whatever is outside these, should be put among the άπόκρυφα. Therefore Wisdom [of Solomon]...and the book of Jesus son of Sirach [= Ecclesiasticus], and Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd [of Hermas] are not in the canon.​

- Jerome, Introduction to Kings​

Jerome included Tobit because the church required him too, even though he had a different opinion. That’s my point. We see these opinions from individuals like Jerome. But I don’t know of any Bible manuscripts that omit the book of Tobit any time before the 1500’s.

 

[NathanH83]

Some OT or all OT?
I am simply asking if it was moved to the Apocrypha in many Bibles (alongside Maccabees).

The Old Testament used by Christians prior to 1500

 

[atpollard]

The Old Testament used by Christians prior to 1500

Come on, I just quoted from the preface to Kings in the Vulgate bible (written by Jerome) that states the status of books included in the Old Testament and SPECIFICALLY claims that Tobit (and several others) are included but not inspired (Apocryphal). So YES, Tobit was in the Old Testament … however you are conveniently ignoring the fact that those same Old Testaments claim that Tobit is not Holy Scripture.

Why the vital importance to include translations of uninspired books in the Holy Bible?
The Apocryphal status of Tobit goes back as far as the “Bible” itself (before the BOOK, there were just individual scrolls).

You are swallowing camels and straining gnats.

 

[NathanH83]

Come on, I just quoted from the preface to Kings in the Vulgate bible (written by Jerome) that states the status of books included in the Old Testament and SPECIFICALLY claims that Tobit (and several others) are included but not inspired (Apocryphal). So YES, Tobit was in the Old Testament … however you are conveniently ignoring the fact that those same Old Testaments claim that Tobit is not Holy Scripture.

Why the vital importance to include translations of uninspired books in the Holy Bible?
The Apocryphal status of Tobit goes back as far as the “Bible” itself (before the BOOK, there were just individual scrolls).

You are swallowing camels and straining gnats.

Jerome and others expressed their opinion that Tobit is non-canonical (Even though the church required him to include it as canonical).

But many Christians and church councils declared Tobit to be divine canonical scripture. It’s their words against theirs. How do you know who is right?

I think there’s good reason to suspect that the Jews accepted Tobit before they removed it. That would explain the reason why John’s disciples, Polycarp and Ignatius, quoted it as scripture, but Christians who lived later on rejected it as holy scripture. Jerome never met the disciples.

 

[Andrew]

Some OT or all OT?
I am simply asking if it was moved to the Apocrypha in many Bibles (alongside Maccabees).

Luther did that

 

[Lamb]

Luther did that

Site your source please?

 

[Andrew]

Site your source please?

Wasn't he the first to put the Apocrypha section in-between the OT and NT?

 

[atpollard]

Jerome and others expressed their opinion that Tobit is non-canonical (Even though the church required him to include it as canonical).

The Latin Vulgate is probably the translation of the Bible that was DOMINANT for longer than any other. Far longer than the venerable KJV bible has been with us, the Vulgate Bible was THE BIBLE of THE CHURCH … all of Christiandom. Within virtually every copy of that venerable Bible, carefully preserved alongside the WORDS OF GOD were the words of TOBIT and the words explaining that books like TOBIT were NOT to be accepted as “God-breathed” scripture for Church Dogma.

THAT INCONVENIENT FACT is no small matter to be shrugged off an an inconsequential opinion of one man. That is the teaching of THE CHURCH recorded in the dominant translation of the BIBLE for over a thousand years. Why do you seek at this late date to overturn two thousand years of Church teaching about the place of Tobit by elevating it to the status of Divine Scripture? A status that all evidence indicates Tobit NEVER had.

 

[atpollard]

But many Christians and church councils declared Tobit to be divine canonical scripture.

What church councils declared Tobit to be canonical scripture?

 

[Andrew]

The Latin Vulgate is probably the translation of the Bible that was DOMINANT for longer than any other. Far longer than the venerable KJV bible has been with us, the Vulgate Bible was THE BIBLE of THE CHURCH … all of Christiandom. Within virtually every copy of that venerable Bible, carefully preserved alongside the WORDS OF GOD were the words of TOBIT and the words explaining that books like TOBIT were NOT to be accepted as “God-breathed” scripture for Church Dogma.

THAT INCONVENIENT FACT is no small matter to be shrugged off an an inconsequential opinion of one man. That is the teaching of THE CHURCH recorded in the dominant translation of the BIBLE for over a thousand years. Why do you seek at this late date to overturn two thousand years of Church teaching about the place of Tobit by elevating it to the status of Divine Scripture? A status that all evidence indicates Tobit NEVER had.

So you are saying that before Jerome, the book of Tobit had an introduction stating that it's not "God-breathed"?

 

[atpollard]

So you are saying that before Jerome, the book of Tobit had an introduction stating that it's not "God-breathed"?

No, I was saying that Jerome recorded the belief of the Church and some 4th Century OT Scholarship concerning books like Tobit and Judith when he translated the Greek into the Latin Vulgate. I am also saying that the CHURCH accepted the Vulgate as THE BIBLE of all Christiandom from the 400’s when it was written until men felt the need to translate it into vernacular languages in the 1500’s. For over 1000 years, the CHURCH accepted the teaching of the Vulgate Bible as the teaching of The Church and saw no need to change or correct it.

Included in that Vulgate bible is the clear statement that books like Tobit and Judith are not canonical, but are apocryphal. Thus for at least 1000 years, the church taught that Tobit was “apocryphal” even before Luther created a separate section between the OT and NT.

That means that any claim to TOBIT being “God breathed” must look to a bible from before the 400’s or be a 21st century change to the Holy Canon. Tobit has been proven to be “apocryphal” since the 400’s AD (The start of the Vulgate Bible).

 

[Andrew]

No, I was saying that Jerome recorded the belief of the Church and some 4th Century OT Scholarship concerning books like Tobit and Judith when he translated the Greek into the Latin Vulgate. I am also saying that the CHURCH accepted the Vulgate as THE BIBLE of all Christiandom from the 400’s when it was written until men felt the need to translate it into vernacular languages in the 1500’s. For over 1000 years, the CHURCH accepted the teaching of the Vulgate Bible as the teaching of The Church and saw no need to change or correct it.

Included in that Vulgate bible is the clear statement that books like Tobit and Judith are not canonical, but are apocryphal. Thus for at least 1000 years, the church taught that Tobit was “apocryphal” even before Luther created a separate section between the OT and NT.

That means that any claim to TOBIT being “God breathed” must look to a bible from before the 400’s or be a 21st century change to the Holy Canon. Tobit has been proven to be “apocryphal” since the 400’s AD (The start of the Vulgate Bible).

1. The OT scholar was an unbelieving Rabbi
2. The church was hesitant and didn't accept it until sometime later
3. Jerome's best friend Rufinus wrote him a really nasty letter objecting to his decision to side with a non Christian on the matter of what books Christians should remove from the OT.
4. Before Jerome there were many accounts from many Church fathers referring to these texts as divine scripture, holy and sacred etc..
5. Christian tradition is not Jewish tradition and apocryphal books were not allowed into the churches, these books were the false apocalyptic texts and not those found among the so called "Apocrypha" text (Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Wisdom etc..)
6. For 400 years they were Church Tradition per the majority of Christian writers and Church fathers.

 

[atpollard]

For 400 years they were Church Tradition per the majority of Christian writers and Church fathers.

Then you will need to quote them in support of any “debate thesis” that Tobit belongs in the Bible as canonical scripture. One cannot simply argue that it has been included in “every” Bible prior to 1500 when the Vulgate Bibles (the official Bible of the Church from the 400’s until the vernacular bibles) clearly states that Tobit is included as an “apocryphal” and not “canonical” literature.

A very specific statement about Tobit, all Bibles prior to 1500 and the canonical status of Tobit in those Bibles was made. Being both relatively disinterested and ignorant of the details, I invested a minimal effort to check the facts for myself and found them being misrepresented … badly. Tobit has been apocryphal since the 400’s and not since the 1500’s. The CHURCH has acknowledged that in its acceptance of the Vulgate and careful copying of the text.

With respect to the ECFs (most of whom are not actually “Apostolic Fathers” in that most never knew any apostle), they believed many things and wrote many things … most of which is sound and some of which is downright heretical. Imagine, the early Christians were not infallible, but they were men just like us (who would have imagined). That is why “Sola Scriptura” is so important and adding to the 66 books in every Christian Bible is such an important matter.

So feel free to prove a “thesis” that Tobit is divinely inspired canonical scripture. I have no objection. However its’ inclusion in the Vulgate Bible with a note that it is “apocryphal“ and not “canonical” is not proof that it was once Biblical Canon. The “every Bible before 1500” argument is misleading.

Since I am not certain that any Bibles (books) existed before 400 AD, I think your “proof” will probably need to come from Church Councils providing a list of canonical scrolls. Beyond that, we are likely exchanging our non-binding opinions for the non-binding opinions of dead men … which proves nothing. However, it is your thesis, so you are free to prove it however you wish. (I am free to question any statements that seem suspicious).

 

[atpollard]

The OT scholar was an unbelieving Rabbi

So was Tobit.
(Sorry, I could not resist).

 

[NathanH83]

The Latin Vulgate is probably the translation of the Bible that was DOMINANT for longer than any other. Far longer than the venerable KJV bible has been with us, the Vulgate Bible was THE BIBLE of THE CHURCH … all of Christiandom. Within virtually every copy of that venerable Bible, carefully preserved alongside the WORDS OF GOD were the words of TOBIT and the words explaining that books like TOBIT were NOT to be accepted as “God-breathed” scripture for Church Dogma.

THAT INCONVENIENT FACT is no small matter to be shrugged off an an inconsequential opinion of one man. That is the teaching of THE CHURCH recorded in the dominant translation of the BIBLE for over a thousand years. Why do you seek at this late date to overturn two thousand years of Church teaching about the place of Tobit by elevating it to the status of Divine Scripture? A status that all evidence indicates Tobit NEVER had.

I don’t think you can show that the Eastern Orthodox ever accepted the Latin Vulgate. The early church greatly criticized the Vulgate when it was first published. I care more about what the very first Christians thought.

 

[NathanH83]

What church councils declared Tobit to be canonical scripture?

Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, late 380’s and 390’s. Not sure of any others. But there’s plenty of examples of other church fathers quoting it as scripture, others rejecting it.
But who’s right?

 

[NathanH83]

Then you will need to quote them in support of any “debate thesis” that Tobit belongs in the Bible as canonical scripture. One cannot simply argue that it has been included in “every” Bible prior to 1500 when the Vulgate Bibles (the official Bible of the Church from the 400’s until the vernacular bibles) clearly states that Tobit is included as an “apocryphal” and not “canonical” literature.

A very specific statement about Tobit, all Bibles prior to 1500 and the canonical status of Tobit in those Bibles was made. Being both relatively disinterested and ignorant of the details, I invested a minimal effort to check the facts for myself and found them being misrepresented … badly. Tobit has been apocryphal since the 400’s and not since the 1500’s. The CHURCH has acknowledged that in its acceptance of the Vulgate and careful copying of the text.

With respect to the ECFs (most of whom are not actually “Apostolic Fathers” in that most never knew any apostle), they believed many things and wrote many things … most of which is sound and some of which is downright heretical. Imagine, the early Christians were not infallible, but they were men just like us (who would have imagined). That is why “Sola Scriptura” is so important and adding to the 66 books in every Christian Bible is such an important matter.

So feel free to prove a “thesis” that Tobit is divinely inspired canonical scripture. I have no objection. However its’ inclusion in the Vulgate Bible with a note that it is “apocryphal“ and not “canonical” is not proof that it was once Biblical Canon. The “every Bible before 1500” argument is misleading.

Since I am not certain that any Bibles (books) existed before 400 AD, I think your “proof” will probably need to come from Church Councils providing a list of canonical scrolls. Beyond that, we are likely exchanging our non-binding opinions for the non-binding opinions of dead men … which proves nothing. However, it is your thesis, so you are free to prove it however you wish. (I am free to question any statements that seem suspicious).

Did Jerome actually say in his Vulgate that Tobit is Apocryphal? Or just that the Jews believed that? Do you have a reference?

I read Jerome’s intro to Judith, and he claimed that the Nicean council found Judith to be scripture. Did Jerome actually claim that the church rejects Tobit???