The Book Of Tobit, What Do You Know?

[simonthezealot]

compared to what happened to Job

Hi sis, NOt talking about Job though...Right?

I may have issues with that book as well but i'll save it for the...
"Job what do you know of it?" thread...

 

[Kristos]

It seems to me verses like this seem a little outside of God inspired...
And as he was sleeping, hot dung out of a swallow's nest fell upon his eyes, and he was made blind.

The dung part or the unbelieve circumstance?

Dung is used 7 places in the OT:
Mal 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.

No more unbelievabel than the story of Jonah:
Jon 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

 

[simonthezealot]

Interesting, my translation didn't say this... it calls it feast refuse.
HMMM gonna hafta check the strongs...

 

[Kristos]

H6569
פּרשׁ
peresh
peh'-resh
From H6567; excrement (as eliminated): - dung.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The Book of Tobit comes down to us in two common Greek textual traditions. It is now asserted by almost all scholars that the longer text tradition with its emphasis on Jewish traditions in the period before Christ is the more original. When reading the book, one should seek out a translation of the longer version. The RSV is based upon the shorter recension and the NRSV is based upon the longer more original version.

[Note1: the upcoming ESV Apocrypha will be based upon the longer text.]
[Note2: the NETS- New English Translation of the Septuagint puts both texts in parallel columns.]

Here is the "bird poop" passage from the NRSV, Tobit 2:9-10, "That same night I washed myself and went into my courtyard and slept by the wall of the courtyard; and my face was uncovered because of the heat. I did not know that there were sparrows on the wall; their fresh droppings fell into my eyes and produced white films. I went to physicians to be healed, but the more they treated me with ointments the more my vision was obscured by the white films, until I became completely blind."

What does the passage actually say?

1. Tobit got poop in his eyes which caused white films
2. Physicians trying to remove the white films made Tobit go blind

Obviously there is much in the passage we do not know. Why did the bird poop cause white films? What were the white films? What did the physicians do to Tobit?

None of these questions are answered. We are only left with the surface of events in the narration, nothing more. It is fantastic. I do not find this passage more fantastic than many things I've seen in my short life on God's green earth, or than what one may find in the other scriptures for that matter.

[Note3: By the way, several fragments of the Book of Tobit in the Hebrew language were recovered from the Dead Sea Scroll caves. The evidence from these fragments is one thing that has led scholars to accept the longer text tradition as being closer to the orignal. It also demonstrates the book was in circulation in Israel before and during the time of Jesus in the Hebrew language.]

It seems to me verses like this seem a little outside of God inspired...
And as he was sleeping, hot dung out of a swallow's nest fell upon his eyes, and he was made blind.

It would appear the translation your quoting is the Douay-Rheims for verse 2:11. After looking it over it appears the Douay version of Tobit is based upon a variant of the shorter derived text.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Tobit%202:11;&version=63;

It appears the shorter edited down version of Tobit blames the birds for Tobit's blindness and the longer more original version blames the blindness on the physicians' ointments and an initial injury is blamed on the birds.

 

[Jig]

In fact, the author of Tobit somewhat heavy-handedly indicates this book is not to be considered sacred history right in the introduction by introducing a number of historical impossibilities which would have been immediately obvious to his Jewish audience. For instance, Tobit says of himself that he was living at the time when the Northern Kingdom of Israel separated itself from Judah under King Rehobaom (1:4 NRSV); if I calculate this right that would have occurred about 900 BC, right? Tobit then indicates he was living too when the Nothern Kingdom was carried into captivity in 722 BC, about 180 years later (1:3 NRSV) . Tobit is said to die at the ripe old age of 112, however. (14:2 NRSV) There are other indicators as well. The writer is queuing the reader in obvious ways the historical setting of his book is fictional and to prevent the book from being considered in the genre of sacred history.

Actually this is one of the bigger problems for me with Tobit, which I just happen to be reading at this moment (before I even stumbled on this thread). I enjoy reading apocrypha books, but I must admit, I don't see them as inspired. This does not mean they have no value or don't hold godly truths, which is probably why they seem to be found where canonical books are found. I love Wisdom of Solomon.

This explaination you give here, however, seems to sweep this issue under the rug then really trying to explain it. Of course with a mishap like this no one is going to consider Tobit "sacred history". It's hard to believe a book written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit would contain such historical flaws to merely que the reader that the book is fictional. It is not needed and uncalled for. When Jesus was telling His parables He never queued His audience that His stories were fictional by adding in historical inaccuracies.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Jig, I intend to answer you once I've thought through my reply.

In the meantime at the risk of beating a dead horse I need to post what I found last night before I forget. An earlier poster wrote,

It seems to me verses like this seem a little outside of God inspired...
And as he was sleeping, hot dung out of a swallow's nest fell upon his eyes, and he was made blind.

I began to wonder about this quote from the Douay-Rheims. Why is Tobit 2:11 in it so differerent than both GI and GII which are translated in parallel columns in the NETS? As it turns out, I discovered, y'all probably already were aware, the Douay was transalted from the Vulgate not the LXX. That alone accounts for Tobit being so variant in the Vulgate from almost all other Bibles.

Bibles based upon the GI (shorter Greek version)
King James Version
Revised Standard Version
New English Translation of the Septuagint
In these versions, the birds' poop is initially the cause of Tobit's eye problems and that the physicians were unable to help. It is not stated the bird poop or the physicians are the cause of Tobit's blindness.

Bibles based upon the GII (longer Greek version)
New Revised Standard Version
New English Bible
Today's English Version
New Jerusalem Bible
New English Translation of the Septuagint
In these versions, the birds' poop is the cause of Tobit's eye problems and that the physicians are the cause of his blindness.

Bibles based upon the Vulgate
Douay-Rheims
Knox Translation
In these versions the birds' poop is the source of Tobit's blindess. There is no mention of physicians.

My tentative conclusion is this, the Vulgate may represent an excellent translation of the books of the Hebrew scriptures, but due to the acknowledged lack of respect for the Greek O.T. books which Jerome their translator professed, the "translations" of those books in the Vulgate should be judged as highly suspect. In the verse in question it looks to me as if Jerome did a 'summing up' of the version found in GI and assumed the birds to be the cause of blindness.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Actually this is one of the bigger problems for me with Tobit, which I just happen to be reading at this moment (before I even stumbled on this thread). I enjoy reading apocrypha books, but I must admit, I don't see them as inspired. This does not mean they have no value or don't hold godly truths, which is probably why they seem to be found where canonical books are found. I love Wisdom of Solomon.

This explaination you give here, however, seems to sweep this issue under the rug then really trying to explain it. Of course with a mishap like this no one is going to consider Tobit "sacred history". It's hard to believe a book written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit would contain such historical flaws to merely que the reader that the book is fictional. It is not needed and uncalled for. When Jesus was telling His parables He never queued His audience that His stories were fictional by adding in historical inaccuracies.

I am thinking through your points. So I may best respond, could you please cite one of Jesus' parables that would be analogous to the kind of story-telling we find in Tobit?

 

[Jig]

I am thinking through your points. So I may best respond, could you please cite one of Jesus' parables that would be analogous to the kind of story-telling we find in Tobit?

The prodigal son.

 

[SummaScriptura]

And yet the passage containing the parable of the prodigal son is prefaced in vers 3 with the words, "so he told them this parable", for the trio of lost and found stories. Stating "the following is a parable" is also a heavy-handed way to make the hearer reckon with the fictional background of the stories. Perhaps I should look for a better term than heavy-handed though.

Actually this is one of the bigger problems for me with Tobit, which I just happen to be reading at this moment (before I even stumbled on this thread). I enjoy reading apocrypha books, but I must admit, I don't see them as inspired. This does not mean they have no value or don't hold godly truths, which is probably why they seem to be found where canonical books are found. I love Wisdom of Solomon.

This explaination you give here, however, seems to sweep this issue under the rug then really trying to explain it. Of course with a mishap like this no one is going to consider Tobit "sacred history". It's hard to believe a book written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit would contain such historical flaws to merely que the reader that the book is fictional. It is not needed and uncalled for. When Jesus was telling His parables He never queued His audience that His stories were fictional by adding in historical inaccuracies.

I will seek to explain a little more why the fictional elements of the story seem okay to me and do not exclude the book from being considered inspired scripture for me.

Before I do, I should reveal my a priori assumption concerning Tobit...

I am Baptist, and though as a Baptist I hold the two Baptist distinctives near and dear, namely, the priesthood of the believer and the autonomy of the local church. Nevertheless, I temper my outlook with a spirit of catholicity, (small "c"). God is revealing Himself in and through the history of His people. Therefore, on the subject of what is to be included in the Bible, I accept the ancient traditions of the orthodox communions. So I approach these books as scripture to start and proceed to interpret from there.

So Tobit presents us with quite a number of fictional elements. How do I deal with that? Well, I have to broaden my previously parochial perspective and include that which I believe God has included. Am I committing myself to stretching any details to as long as I can make them fit? No. I am only saying I am committed to doing for Tobit that which we take for granted concerning the other difficult parts of the Bible like for instance the Book of Jonah. With Jonah, the apologetics and explanations which have been presented by Christians so that we can believe its contents, we now take for granted. To an outsider those explanations still no doubt seem like a stretch, but because we approach this subject with an eye of faith we see it as a believable story. I beleive Jonah was a real person, who prophesied in ancient Ninevah after living in the belly of some sort of large sea creature for three days. Do I undertsnd it all? No. Do I beleive it all? Yes.

With Tobit, I cannot believe the numerous anachromisms are "mishaps". I think even the common folk amongst the Jews of that day would have been able to point out some of them. For instance, Tobit is said to live in Northern Israel when the kingdom was divided in 921 BC; Tobias, Tobit's son, is said to be alive even after the fall of Ninevah in 612 BC, a span of time of 300 years. The names of Israel's nemeses, Nebuchadnezer, Shalmanser, etc. are mentioned but they are placed in the wrong sequence and impossible times and places.

I appreciate your questioning my hypothesis that the author was attempting to show the reader his work is not to be considered sacred history due to its being based in a fictional setting. Perhaps you are right and he did not need to do that in that way.

Perhaps, this was an ancient attempt at humor.

Humor is one of those things that does not translate well from one generation to the next, let alone across centuries, languages and cultures, so it would be difficult to proove this. But perhaps the numerous incongruities of history and place would have hit people in their funny-bone in ancient times. For instance, if I were to say that George Washington and George Bush were good friends who often dined together, modern readers might get a feeling for the kind of off-kilter world the Book of Tobit sets for its historical background. I think there are other examples of seeming humor in the book, such as Tobias and Sarah going to bed on their wedding night and falling fast asleep!

In short, I accept Tobit as inspired scripture and holy writ despite the fact it seems to introduce a totally new type of literary genre to the Bible, that of inspirational romance novel, though perhaps there is a better moniker for it.