Talk:Book of Tobit

untitled
Minor edit: I corrected some vandalism, but forgot to check the "minor edit" box. Anfractuous 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's worse to mark a major edit as minor than the other way around, and reverting vandalism isn't necessarily minor. Anyway, it's more important to include an edit summary than to ensure minor edits are marked. Simply "Revert vandalism" or "rvv" is sufficient. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does the Book Of Torbit not appear in many of the most used bible translations today? Does anyone know? --Findel


 * Because it's considered apocryphal by Protestants, as the article says, and the most popular Bible translations today (at least in the US) are by and for Protestants. --No-One Jones 22:36, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks --Findel

Naphtalite
The text describes Tuvia/Tobias as a "Jew," but if he were from the tribe of Naphtali, then he was not, strictly speaking, a "Jew" (i.e. member of the tribe of Judah). In modern times, "Jew" has come to mean an adherent of the Jewish religion, but that was not the case in ancient times, as the name of the tribe predates the name of the religion. He would have been an Israelite or, more specifically, a Naphtalite.

Asmodai
The trouble with the homosexuality connection is that it appears to be found only in later sources, from medieval or Renaissance Western Christian demonologies. It's an error to apply it here therefore, unless this demon can be shown to have been associated with homosexuality at the time Tobit was written. (Unless there's a section on Christian exegesis of this book, but that doesn't seem to apply in context.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ashmodai or Asmodeus
Are their any English translations of Tobit that use the spelling Ashmodai? The only spelling I'm familiar with is Asmodeus, from the Latin Asmodaeus. Rwflammang (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC) When tobit was born he became blind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.169.194 (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Textual differences
I am somewhat confused reading the book of Tobit because in the King James Version 1:3-3:6 is written in the first person by Tobit (who has a son Tobias). In, for example, the Douay-Rheims version, both the father and the son have exactly the same name, Tobias, the corresponding passage is written in the third person, and many of the details differ. The old Finnish Bible seems to correspond more to the Douay-Rheims version than the King James, although it is certainly a Protestant translation. What I am trying to get at is that there seem to be two markedly different textual sources, and I would like to elucidate what these are. 75.164.223.230 (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Douay version was based on the Vulgate, hence the writing in the third person; it also leaves out the Aman/Nadav and Achiacharos/Achiakaros reference in Chapter 14 of the two Greek versions for that reason. In his preface to Tobit, St. Jerome says he's translating from Aramaic; evidently his text was different from either of the Greek versions we have now.Isidorpax (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)  Martin Luther used the Vulgate text for his German translation of Tobit; Sweden and Finland were under a Lutheran monarch, so that may account for the old Finnish version you mention.  The King James committee went with the Greek, as had the translators of the previous best-selling English Bible, the Geneva Bible, a half-century earlier.Isidorpax (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Book of Tobit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5Prjkilh0?url=http%3A%2F%2Fanglicansonline.org%2Fbasics%2Fthirty-nine_articles.html to http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227202156/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0839/__PCA.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PCA.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Title (Aramaic)
This work may have been composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, according to the article. The Hebrew title of this work, according to the Hebrew Wikipedia, is ספר טוביה, which translates to The Book of Tobit in English. Yet, I find no mention of how the work is referred to commonly in Aramaic, nor whether said title also translates to The Book of Tobit in English. For that matter, there is not even a mention of this work on the Aramaic Wikipedia. allixpeeke (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ספר טוביה is not an original name. It's a back-translation. If the book was originally written in Hebrew, no Hebrew copies have existed for 2000 years.2603:8081:2603:E100:48AC:FF84:7D46:2647 (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A mistake was made
Hello you reverted my edits believing that it was a "POV edit". I can understand the confusion, but if you look carefully, I merely added back what forgot to add back in when he made his own edit. I did not make a POV edit, that sentence stood there for some time, and is important, since if the author himself acknowledges the disputation, I do not see why we should not mention it. I will revert it back, since it looks like it is who has to provide justification for taking it out, rather than me for restoring what was there for months. --72.65.248.211 (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. The words Dimadick took out are the words in brackets in this passage: "The story in the Book of Tobit is set in the 8th century BC, but a number of historical errors rule this out,(according to Miller, though some may dispute this)". That's sourced to Miller, pages 10-11, but Miller doesn't have anything like the words in brackets - they're yours, and therefore they are your own point of view (i.e, pov). What Miller says is this: "[S]cholars are in general agreement as to when the book was written (p.10) ... most scholars date the book to some time between 225 to 175 BC (p.11)." The entire paragraph could and should be shortened to just that.Achar Sva (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Genre
Whilst I agree that the single sentence on genre doesn't deserve its own section, surely it fits better with "Canon status" (to which its genre is at least tangentially relevant) than with "Composition and manuscripts"? —VeryRarelyStable 10:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's hard to find the appropriate place for it when a single sentence is all we can find to say. I agree with you, and I'm hoping a solution will present itself. Achar Sva (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Apocryphal or canonical
and, you have basically been edit warring over this for the past several days. Hash it out here. I'm not really taking a side here, but I would say that the source being provided (Levine page 4) doesn't appear to say anything at all about Tobit. On the other hand, replacing a statement that at least tries to provide a source with a statement that has no source whatsoever isn't great either. Regardless, please try to come to some understanding before any more changes are made.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * According to Encyclopaedia Britannica "Apocrypha per se are outside the canon, not considered divinely inspired but regarded as worthy of study by the faithful. Pseudepigrapha are spurious works ostensibly written by a biblical figure. Deuterocanonical works are those that are accepted in one canon but not in all."


 * Anglicans don't have Tobit in their canon (their bible don't have 73 books, they consider only 66 books as canonicals, and they have the Tobit book as Apocrypha like the rest of the Protestants.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Tobit is in the deuterocanon for Catholic/Orthodox communions and the apocrypha of various Protestant denominations, including the Anglicans. The source is this table.


 * The situation isn't as simple as Rafaelosornio believes. The apocrypha is one of several parts of the deueterocanon, making it correct to refer to Tobit as part of the deuterocanon. In any case, its canonical status is not really important. Achar Sva (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Methodists don't hold this book or any of the Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha as part of the Bible - this is a mistake and needs to be corrected. I didn't have access to the sources cited, but there has been some sort of mis-reading here. These books are never mentioned in the Methodist world - no Bible study has ever covered them in my extensive 50 years of involvement with church governance 50.111.52.253 (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. See the section named Methodist Claim, below. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Tobias and the Angel - Filippino Lippi.jpg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Tobias and the Angel - Filippino Lippi.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 4, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-06-04. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Liarous deletion
This is a verbatim quote: "the vast majority of modern commentators recognize it as a piece of fiction". tgeorgescu (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Methodist Claim
This article states:
 * "...the Protestant tradition places (the Book of Tobit) in the Apocrypha, with Anabaptists, Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodist recognising it as part of the Bible and useful for purposes of edification and liturgy, albeit non-canonical in status."

My issue with this statement is all of the first red text above. It contradicts what comes afterward, as it says "albeit non-canonical in status." Then there is the second red text, which is also untrue, though there is a source which incorrectly implies it to be true. In fact, it's the only source provided for the word liturgy:
 * DeSilva, David Arthur (2002). Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. Baker Academic. p. 76. ISBN 978-0-8010-2319-4. The author also promotes an ideology of marriage, revealed mainly in the prayer of 8:5–7 (which is an optional Old Testament reading in Catholic, Anglican, and United Methodist marriage services).

First off, the UMC as noted above do not consider it part of the Bible, so it is not an "Old Testament reading." I have read through The United Methodist Book of Worship (UMCBW) and every entry on "marriage." There are many prayers, none of which mention or resemble Tobias 8:5-7. The UMCBW are the rules of worship for the entire United Methodist Church (UMC), which are to be followed. A pastor can customize it as he/she sees fit, but the UMC does not recognize any of the books of the Apocrypha in liturgy. There are however other sects of Methodists, which may be different. The UMC is directly from the original, which was founded by John Wesley, himself. Granted, the others are breakaways from the schisms in the original Methodist church. I can source all of this, but it shouldn't be necessary for the purpose of these small changes.

Now, circling back to the sentence, I personally think that the new sentence could simply be rewritten as follows:


 * "... the Protestant tradition places (the Book of Tobit) in the Apocrypha, with Anabaptists, Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodist recognising it as useful for purposes of edification, albeit non-canonical in status. "

Then edit the source and entirely remove the mention of the UMC in the source above, also marked in red. At least until someone can find a source of authority of the UMC, that says otherwise. The note written does not indicate where that statement comes from. It is not a quote, so is it the opinion of the book's author, or of the one that added the source itself? So it should be:


 * (which is an optional Old Testament reading in the Catholic and Anglican churches.)

Does anyone disagree? For that matter, should we put it up for a vote and if so, how does that work? I know it exists but have never used it before. If no one responds I will fix it, as per my suggestions.

Phew! Okay, I'm done. Many thanks to all!

MagnoliaSouth (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Magnoliasouth, thanks for your comments. I've revised the statement in the lede in accordance with much of what you stated above. I should note that there is a difference between "considering the Book of Tobit as a book of the Bible" and "considering the Book of Tobit as a book as canonical". Protestants (including Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists) do not recognize the Book of Tobit as canonical, but many Protestant Bibles contain 80 books: the books of the Old Testament, the books of the Apocrypha, and the books of the New Testament (for example the 1611 KJV). While the Old Testament and New Testament are recognized as canonical, the Apocrypha is not—yet all three sections are included in many Protestant Bibles, especially outside the United States (e.g. the Luther Bible of Germany). That being said, since the clause "part of the Bible" might be a source of confusion, I have removed it per your suggestion. With regard to the clause "and liturgy", I have kept it because Methodism's first liturgical text (designed by John Wesley), The Sunday Service of the Methodists, includes the reading of a verse from the Book of Tobit (4:8-9) in "The Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper" (the Eucharistic liturgy). I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Tobias's dog
I notice that this rare biblical dog, always included by Renaissance artists, appears twice in the Coptic Xtian text linked at the end of the article, but not at all in the Serafia Jewish version. Presumably he was in the Septuagint. Does anyone when he appeared or disappeared from texts? Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Historical genre
Currently, the introductory paragraph mentions that the majority of modern scholars consider the genre of the text to be "fiction." This is probably true. Reading the cited source, it is written by one author, who I believe deserves mention since he is being quoted via paraphrase, and he only cites one other. I am searching in academic journals for that article Fitzmyer cites to add it as a reference. The text by Fitzmyer says "the vast majority of modern commentators recognize it as a work of fiction." I want to look for a few more that corroborate that this is the "vast majority of scholars." Based on precursory reading, this is probably accurate. However, since Wikipedia is encyclopedic, the goal isn't to exclude other scholars *if* that claim is not accurate. I encourage other editors to add references so it can be seen that the fact is not just from one source/one author. SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

To briefly add, so far, in the academic articles I've looked at, the scholars seem to have consensus that it was written in the genre of a fable, a fictional story that tells a moral point/lesson.SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The content guideline is WP:RS/AC and you will have to obey it, like any other editor. We don't require censuses of scholars.
 * WP:RS/AC says that claims of consensus or majority opinion have to be sourced to WP:RS. It does not require lists of scholars, nor censuses.
 * And WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV together with WP:RS/AC would be a rare combination. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Tgeorgescu, your tone continues to be quite aggressive. We follow rules. Telling people to "obey" rules, especially rules not violated, comes across as antagonistic. I ask that any conversation remain respectful. Thank you.
 * Responding to your comment, there is not request for a "census" of scholars. However, are you saying that one book by one author is authoritative enough to make a ubiquitous claim? Another question is, if another RS says the opposite of what Fitzmyer says, should that just be in the article juxtaposition with the converse claim? The answer is, of course not. WP:RS does not mean that any single RS can determine absolute truth. Peer-reviewed research is WP:RS but often has different conclusions.
 * I believe the claim in the cited RS is probably accurate. However, anyone with professional/academic training knows that just citing one source by one author is not enough to say "this is true for the vast majority of whoever." What my comment here above is saying, in summary, is that it would be helpful to have more than one citation by more than one author. SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RS/AC does not say what you say above. You're inventing new WP:RULES, moving the goalposts.
 * I did not WP:THREATEN you with admin action, you have threatened me. You told me to stay off your talk page. Am I the one who is being rude? DARVO. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, you say on your talk page the same thing I said, that if there is a dispute you will report to admins. That is all I said and I said it because your aggressive comments gave me pause and I did not feel comfortable. I do not want to argue with you on my talk page or receive your comments there. That's my boundary. I wasn't going to bring that here, but you seem to be trying to make this personal. I'm not going to do that. That's all I'll say about that. I'm sticking to the subject.


 * I'm misunderstanding you perhaps. Are you are saying that one author in one book is enough to make a universal claim? If so, I disagree with that and believe that the standards do as well. I do not see why it would not be helpful to just have more citations. I'm a bit confused as to what the issue with more RS to just have a solid two to three citations is. If the sentence stays exactly as it is now but just has two or three more citations from RS, why would that be unhelpful. I'm confused on why that's an issue.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RS/AC says what I say, not what you say. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It says that having three citations for that sentence is not allowed? I doubt that. Many sentences have more than one citation. SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have never claimed . I have claimed that WP:RS/AC never indicated that one WP:RS is not enough. If you have a problem with WP:RS/AC, this talk page is not meant for undoing or amending the content guideline. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not know what you are arguing with me about. I'm talking about adding RS citations, not changing anything else at this point.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody stops you from adding citations to the article. I only said that WP:RS/AC never required more than one WP:RS. The place for changing the content guideline is Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, not this talk page. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then, there is not an actual issue here. What I am talking about on the talk page, as I said very clearly, is that I think we should add citations, not change the text, not change the current citation. To be crystal clear, I want to add RS, not change anything else. So, it seems like there is no disagreement on that.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between adding citations to the article and maintaining that one WP:RS is not enough for a WP:RS/AC claim. The WP:RS/AC claim is now WP:V, regardless of how many other WP:RS you are willing to WP:CITE. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, then, there isn't an issue. I said in my contribution to talk page that I want to add RS, not change anything else.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Tgeorgescu, you do not seem to get it. Seminarian is trying to improve the sourcing, rather than disputing the sentence itself. The aggressive tone is not needed here, and resorting to threats is an overreaction. You regularly protect articles from biblical literalists and other nutcases, but Seminarian seems to be neither of these threats. Dimadick (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If the statement causes so much trouble, it would be necessary to make an attribution. Thus the text would say "According to Fitzmyer, the vast majority of modern commentators recognize it as a piece of fiction with some references to historical events." Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Two remarks: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (expressing doubt) and WP:RS/AC (expressing WP:WEIGHT) is an odd combination.
 * I started this dialogue with "Please obey WP:RS/AC" (twice), so I assume that's polite enough. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In any case, more references are required, because if there is academic consensus, it is enough to say who the academics are. I remind you that the source does not mention the names of the "modern commentators" Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When we say "the majority" or "all of them", we can not cite specific names. It undermines the statement. Dimadick (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain that the consensus is that the Book of Tobit is a work of fiction. My Catholic Youth Bible explicitly said that about this book, and some others. I wasn't aware that people considered it historical. I agree that one citation alone is not sufficient though. Scorpions1325 (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I read the source more closely. It does seem to imply that a large enough minority consider it historical enough to give proponents of its historicity at least SOME coverage. My interpretation could be wrong though. Scorpions1325 (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)