Sunday, October 25, 2020

Catholic apologists on Historical Issues in Judith and Tobit

One argument I don’t use against the Apocrypha in discussions with Catholics is that of the purported historical errors in these volumes. The reason is that, as Catholics (at least faithful, traditional ones) believe the autographs of inspired scripture to be inerrant (click here for more on this), if one accepts a book (e.g., Judith) as theopneustos (God-breathed scripture), one will labour under the a priori assumption that this is something other than an error—it being a genuine mistake is not an active possibility within the realm of possible interpretations, so it would be better to discuss the reception of these books in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity instead. This was pointed out to James White by Gary Michuta during their 2004 debate on the Apocrypha, though it appears White did not get the point Michuta was making.

 

Notwithstanding, it is instructive to see how Catholics disagree among themselves as to how to answer these issues. The following are how Catholics offer differing (sometimes contradictory) explanations of how to resolve some of the historical issues within Judith and Tobit. If/when a Catholic apologist states that the Book of Mormon or some other uniquely “Mormon” scripture is false and uses the fact that LDS scholars and apologists are undecided as to how to explain away a purported discrepancy, one should feel comfortable bringing up similar issues (such issues are compounded in light of the Catholic dogma of the inerrancy of the autographs [which is denied by many priests and scholars, some of whom I know personally, but the historical dogma is that of inerrancy]):

 

Trent Horn:

 

. . . the alleged errors in the deuterocanonical books, such as Judith identifying Nebuchadnezzar as the king of Assyria instead of as the king of Babylon (Jud 1:1 ["It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. In those days Arphaxad ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana"]) or Tobit being described as having lived for more than 150 years (Tob 14:11 [“So now, my children, see what almsgiving accomplishes, and what injustice does-- it brings death! But now my breath fails me." Then they laid him on his bed, and he died; and he received an honorable funeral”]), can be explained. Specifically, these statements are only errors if the author was asserting a literal description of history, but even Protestant scholars agree that the authors of Judith and Tobit were not writing in the genre of literal history.

 

When it comes to the book of Tobit, Martin Luther called it a “pious comedy”, Bruce Metzger called it an “adventure story”, and J.C. Dancy called it a “folk tale”. . . Concerning Judith, Luther said it was fictional due to its titular character Judith (a name that literally means “Lady Jew”) being a symbol for the Jewish people. (Trent Horn, The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017], 57-58 [quotations from the NRSV of Judith 1:1 and Tobit 14:1 added in square brackets])

 

James White calls this approach to the alleged errors in books like Judith an “imaginative” solution, which implies that it is ad hoc and unsound, but he does not interact with any evidence for the nonliteral nature of these texts. Scholars of Hellenistic Jewish literature, on the other hand, are well aware of how ancient authors used anachronism in order to underscore the didactic nature of their historical fiction. (Ibid., 59)

 

Robert Bellarmine

 

On Tobit:

 

. . . it is customarily objected that this book seems to contradict itself. For, in chatper 3, it is said that Sarah, whom the younger Tobias was going to marry, lived in Rages, a city of the Medes, where we read that Gabael was (Tobit 4). Later, however, in chapter 9, when Tobias arrived at the place where Sarah was, from there he sent the angel to Gabael in Rages; therefore it is not true that the home of Sarah was in Rages.

 

Michael Medina in book 6, chapter 14 on the right faith in God thinks in chapter 3 “Rages” is read by a mistake in Scripture, since in Greek it is εν εκπατανοις. But it is hardly credible that such an error could take place, since there is no similarity between Rages and Ecbatana. Others, like Lyranus, say that either there were two Rages in Media, or that certainly in chapter 3 Rages is meant, not the city itself, but some places nearby; for, some one is said to live in Rome, who actually lives in Tusculum or some other place outside of Rome. This opinion is more common, and more true. (The First General Controversy: On the Word of God, Book One, Chapter XI in Controversies of the Christian Faith [trans. Kenneth Baker; Keep the Faith, Inc., 2016], 63)

 

On the Book of Judith:

 

But there is a very difficult objection against this book. For, this history seems to be very contradictory, since in chapter 5 it is said that it took place after the return of the people from the Babylonian captivity, and nevertheless it is said in chapter 1 that at the time Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians, was fighting against Arphaxad, king of the Medes, who had built Esbatana, and these things in no way are in agreement: for, at the time when the people returned from the captivity, the monarchy of the Assyrians had been destroyed, and not Nebuchadnezzar, but Cyrus, or Darius was ruling the Assyrians, and the Persians and the Medes.

 

This great difficulty in a marvelous way has teste the ingenuity of learned men. There are two main opinions about this. One is of those want to place the history of Judith after the Babylonian captivity . . . another opinion is that of those who teach that the history of Judith took place before the Babylonian captivity . . .But none of these opinions seem to be sufficiently probable . . . It seems to us what should be said is that the history of Judith took place in the time of Manasseh, king of Judah . . . Perhaps you will say: If this history took place during the time of King Manasseh, why in the preparation for war, which is narrated in this book, is there no mention of the king? Why is this the whole affair attributed to the high priest?

 

I respond: perhaps this war took place during the captivity of Manasseh and therefore, since the king was absent, the affairs of the kingdom were conducted by the high priest. Also, perhaps there is no mention of the king, because the war did not reach as far as the city of Jerusalem, where the king was. (The First General Controversy: On the Word of God, Book One, Chapter XII, in Ibid., 64, 65, 68)

 

Robert Sungenis

 

In defense of his claim that Nebuchdnezzar in the book of Judith is not the king of Babylon:

 

R. Sungenis: Another reference to your question is the work:

 

Discours sur l'histoire universelle

by Jacques Bénigne Bossuet, 1627 - 1704

 

Dessein général de l’ouvrage

 

He writes: Saosduchin fils d’Asaraddon, appelé Nabuchodonosor dans le livre de Judith, défit en bataille rangée Arphaxad roi des Mèdes.

 

Translated from the French: Saosduchin son of Asaraddon known as Nebuchadnezzar in the Book of Judith beat Arphxad king of the Medes in an ordered battle.

 

URL: https://www.robertsungenis.org/2004/12/december-2004-qa.html; cf. Ibid., "Question 39- Book of Judith: Was Nebuchadnezzer King of Assyria?")