What is the book of Tobit?

The name given to those Books which were attached to the MSS copies of the LXX, but which do not form a part of the canon of scripture. The term itself signifies, 'hidden,' 'secret,' 'occult;' and, as to any pretence of being a part of scripture, they must be described as 'spurious.' There are such writings connected with both the Old and the New Testament, but generally speaking the term 'Apocrypha' refers to the O.T. (for those connected with the N. Test. see APOSTOLIC FATHERS. The O.T. books are: 1 I. Esdras. 2 II. Esdras. 3 Tobit. 4 Judith. 5 Chapters of Esther, not found in the Hebrew nor Chaldee. 6 Wisdom of Solomon. 7 Jesus, son of Sirach; or Ecclesiasticus; quoted Ecclus. 8 Baruch, including the Epistle of Jeremiah. 9 Song of the Three Holy Children 10 The History of Susanna. 11 Bel and the Dragon. 12 Prayer of Manasseh. 13 I. Maccabees. 14 II. Maccabees.

Let me remark here that scripture gives perfectly and soberly according to God, what there are legendary traditions of, or the truth of God's ways in connection with Himself, where man's imagination has invented a mass of false statements to impose on man's fears or love of the wonderful. Thus, take the Book of Tobit (the expression so far of Talmudical and Jewish ideas when they had not present revelation, and the scriptural account of the service of angels), and see how the last is worthy of God and comfortable to us. The denial of these things, as if it was a settled point, and sober men had given it all up, is all very well for infidels and those who are afraid of them; but they must know that men as sober and as sound as they, fully believe in the scriptural statements of angelic administrations and demoniacal power. The Sadducean denial of a world of spirits is prejudice, not sober judgment, as if power (because it was not visible and material) could not exist.

324 Tobias 4:18: this is also Apocrypha, a history of an angel, accompanying a good young man as a dog, and helping him to drive a devil away from his nuptial chamber with a broiled fish's liver.

Expressions of the writers themselves show that they had no thought of their books being taken for scripture. There are also contradictions in them such as are common to human productions. Evil doctrines also are found therein: let one suffice: "Alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin." Tobit 12:9. The value of holy scripture as the fountain of truth is such that anything that might in any way contaminate that spring should be refused with decision and scorn. Some parts of the Apocryphal books may be true as history, but in every other respect they should be refused as spurious. Nor can it be granted that we need the judgement of the church, could a universal judgement be arrived at, as to what is to be regarded as the canon of scripture. The Bible carries its own credentials to the hearts and consciences of the saints who are willing to let its power be felt.

On the other hand, the most flagrant errors are discernible in the Apocrypha. Take only Baruch 1:2, compared with Jer. 43:6-7. Of Tobit we may say that it carries its own condemnation upon almost every page.

How soon the Church belied the possession of the mind of Christ may be seen from the ancient MSS. of the LXX — which are of Christian origin — the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Alexandrian. While they assure us by their contents of Holy Scripture, these documents afford evidence of the early ecclesiastical use of the Apocrypha, which can only have helped on the departure from the truth as it is in Jesus. We shall return to this subject in subsequent chapters.

You quote Tobias also: that is, the Apocrypha. This is one of the terrible sins of Rome. She has pretended to authenticate as scripture what was never owned as such till the middle of the sixteenth century, and what the very person who made the translation which she declares to be authentic states not to be scripture at all. Over and over again he (Jerome) declares there are twenty-two books, excluding thus the Apocrypha from the canon; and in particular, in his preface to Tobias, says it was not in the Hebrew scriptures. In his preface to the Books of Solomon he says, "As, therefore, the church reads, indeed, Judith and Tobias, and the books of the Maccabees, but does not receive them among canonical scriptures, so also let her read these two volumes, for the edification of the people, not to establish the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas." He refers to Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom. Athanasius reckons them up also, twenty-two, both in the Synopsis (if it be his, for some have doubted it), and in the fragment of the Festal epistle, giving them, he says, because some would dare to mix apocryphal books with divine scriptures, and speaking of Tobias and others as read, but not canonical.

121 Origen tells us the same, Eusebius also. But, to be brief, Christ never cites these books, nor are they found in the Hebrew at all. They were never owned by the Jews as part of their scriptures. Josephus is distinct as to what was received, and says there were none after Artaxerxes; that there were others, but not canonical, and that the prophets gave their sanction to books as forming part of the canon. He owned they have no kind of authority whatever; and all authority, Jewish and Christian, declared they were not of the canon till the Council of Trent. Now, the oracles of God are committed to the church, as of old they were to the Jews. The church gives them no authority — it cannot to what God has spoken; but when God had given them, He entrusted them to the church to keep — only watching over it in all His providence — and Rome has proved herself not the church by deliberate unfaithfulness to this, by setting up as scripture what all Jews and the church, and all witnesses, declare with one voice is not. She is self-condemned here. See what is said in Maccabees: "If I have written well, and as befits the story, that is what I wish; if ill, it is to be pardoned me." Why, it is blasphemy to ascribe such words to the Holy Ghost; and of that blasphemy Rome is guilty.

There is a rumour of a Hebrew version of Matthew's gospel, but it is all a nonsensical story. Lucas or Lucius, a known inventor of fables, tells you that Christ when a child, on one occasion, changed His companions into ducks, etc., etc. Look at Tobit, and his dog; it is absurd! Bel and the dragon may be true, but it has nothing to do with inspiration. There is no real difficulty as to the Apocrypha for a person who is really in earnest. In the preface to the Vulgate, Jerome, referring to the Apocrypha, says that these books cannot be inspired, and that, though not inspired, the Church only reads them for the benefit of manners.

Polycarp. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. He says that "Polycarp was instructed by the apostles, and was brought into contact with many who had seen Christ." He is called the bishop of Smyrna. We have already given an account of his martyrdom. He wrote an Epistle to the Philippians, which is mostly exhortations, and abounds with quotations from the Apostolic Epistles; but in one place he quotes the Apocrypha: "When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms deliver from death.'" (Tobit.) This stamps it at once as uninspired: alms do not deliver from death.

The Apocrypha.

The Hebrew Bible or Old Testament was completed with Malachi. Then about 284 B.C. the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Sacred Hebrew Books was begun, and finished about 130 years before Christ. But long after the Old Testament was complete in Hebrew, certain books were written by Jews in Alexandria and elsewhere — dates and names of authors being uncertain — which were bound up with the Septuagint. These books are termed The Apocrypha. They are useful as connecting links of history between the Testaments, but are utterly destitute of Divine authority, nor do the books themselves claim to be inspired. The difference between the Apocrypha and the Hebrew Bible as to character, style, and subjects are patent even to a child.

The Apocrypha was first received as canonical by the Council of Trent, 1545, and is highly regarded by Roman Catholics throughout the world.

Let us remember that this famous Vulgate version of the Bible was originally founded on the Old Italic, which was a literal translation from the Greek. The New Testament and the greater part of the Apocrypha remained so, being only brought up to the revised text of Origen. But the Old Testament was corrected by means of the Hebrew, and the apocryphal books of Tobit and Judith by means of Chaldee translations.