Talk:Book of Tobit

message: 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)
thread_title:  Asmodai 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ashmodai or Asmodeus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Textual differences 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Title (Aramaic) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A mistake was made  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: 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)
thread_title:  File:Tobias and the Angel - Filippino Lippi.jpg scheduled for POTD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Liarous deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Methodist Claim 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tobias's dog