Jump to content

Talk:Book of Tobit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.111.52.253 (talk) at 03:49, 4 June 2021 (→‎Apocryphal or canonical). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

untitled

Minor edit: I corrected some vandalism, but forgot to check the "minor edit" box. Anfractuous 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply] 

When tobit was born he became blind.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.169.194 (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Book of Tobit/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==GA status== Maybe this article fits the bill for becoming a GA. Any thoughts? Xaxafrad 22:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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)[reply]

A mistake was made

Hello @Dimadick: 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 @Achar Sva: 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 @Achar Sva: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Apocryphal or canonical

Achar Sva and Rafaelosornio, 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. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Book of Tobit

The Book of Tobit is a Jewish work from the 3rd or early 2nd century BCE describing how God tests the faithful, responds to prayers, and protects the covenant community (the Israelites). It is regarded as part of the biblical canon of the Catholic and Orthodox churches as a deuterocanonical book, but as part of the biblical apocrypha in some Protestant churches. This 15th-century oil-on-panel painting by Filippino Lippi, entitled Tobias and the Angel, depicts a scene in which Tobias, Tobit's son, goes on a journey accompanied by an angel, without realising that he is an angel, and is instructed what to do with the giant fish that he catches.

Painting credit: Filippino Lippi

Recently featured:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Tobit&oldid=1026764889"