Saturday, January 15, 2022

Is Tobias’ Sacrifice in Tobit 6 a Valid Argument Against the Catholic/Tridentine Canon? (TL;DR: No!)

In Tobit 6:2-9 we read of how a sacrifice of fish entrails wards off demons:

 

As they went along the way, they came at evening to the Tigris River and camped there. Then the young man went down to wash himself, and a fish leapt out from the river and wanted to swallow the young man.  The angel said to him, “Catch the fish!” And so the young man grabbed the fish and threw it on the ground.  Then the angel said to him, “Slit open the fish and remove the heart, liver, and gall. Set them safely aside. So the young man did as the angel told him. After roasting the fish, they ate it. And both of them continued traveling until they drew near to Ecbatana. Then the young man said to the angel, “Brother Azariah, what are the liver, heart, and gall of the fish for?” And he said to him, “As for the heart and the liver, if a demon or evil spirit troubles someone, so let these things make smoke before a man or woman; and no more will the person be troubled. The gall is for anointing a human who has white spots on his eyes, and he will be healed.” (Lexham English Septuagint)

 

This is pretty “odd” by modern standards, to be sure, but just as (or perhaps even less) “weird” than Mark 5 and the Gerasene demoniac (Protestant Steve Christie (and a questioner, Geoffrey Robinson [AKA "A Goy for Jesus"]) used this as a text against the reliability of the Catholic canon in is debate against Trent Horn). Such an action is not actually “unusual” for a Second Temple Jew. Consider the following from Michael L. Satlow in his Jewish Marriage in Antiquity:

 

Although there is no other supporting evidence from Jewish Hellenistic sources, Tobias’s short prayer before consummating his marriage may have been a standard part of both Jewish and non-Jewish wedding celebrations of his time. Nor is Tobias’s “sacrifice” of fish entrails before consummating his marriage to Sarah particularly odd. Medea, in Seneca’s play, mentions the recitation of prayers followed by a sacrifice in the wedding chamber.[79] Philo prefaces his recounting the biblical law regarding the man who accuses his new bride of not being a virgin (Deut. 22:13-21) with the words, “in the case of persons who take maidens in lawful matrimony and have celebrated the bridal sacrifices and feasts.”[80] Josephus argues that a man should not marry a prostitute because God will not accept her marital sacrifice.[81] Neither author mentions precisely when the new couple (or bride alone) would make this sacrifice, although Philo implies that it is made on the day of the wedding itself, before consummation. Either the author of Tobit, Philo, and Josephus added false details about Jewish marriages meant to make these marriages more recognizable to their non-Jewish audiences, or, as I think is more likely, they related contemporary Jewish marital practices. Perhaps influenced by Greek and Roman customs, some Jews during the Second Temple period could have offered small sacrifices in their homes (implied at least by Philo) before consummating their marriages. (Michael L. Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001], 174-75)

 

Notes for the Above

 

[79] Seneca Medea 37-39: "Hoc restat unum, pronubam thalamo feram | up ipsa pinum postque sacrificas preces | caedam dicatis victimas altaribus." The force of this line will be relazed later, when before slaughtering her own children, she again invokes the image of a wedding (894-95, 985-86) and “victima” (970).

 

[80] Philo Spec leg 3.80: και γαμους θυσαντες τε και εστιαθεντες, Cf. Heres 5.

 

[81] Josephus Ant. 4.245. van der Toorn, From Her Cradle to Her Grace: The Role of Religion in the Life of the Israelite and the Babylonian Woman (trans. Sarah J. Benning-Bolle; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 69 interpreters Mal. 2:11-12 as referring to “the sacrifice that was brought to the Lord at the wedding ceremony,” but the text is obscure.

 

Tobias’ sacrifice, as recorded in the book of Tobit, is not “odd” nor is it a good argument against its canonicity or the Tridentine canon from session 4 of Trent (April 1546). I hope critics of Catholicism will drop this argument.