1 Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew

NathanH83 said:

That's why the early church accepted it as scripture. Even Martin Luther called it scripture.

Click to expand...

why does that automatically make it scripture?

Pretty sure it was originally written in Polish...[emoji2958][emoji41]

It does not matter in which language 1 & 2 Maccabees were first written. What matters is that the Church recognises in them the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the authorship of God. Once any part of the holy scriptures is made "holy" by its alleged pedigree, its alleged "original language", the opinions of scholars, the traditions of Judaism or the assessment of individuals who started a church or movement then the whole of canonical holy scripture becomes a thoroughly human enterprise with no more value than any human enterprise. If the holiness of the holy scriptures is subject to human evaluation rather than Church teaching they become as holy as the Quran or any other work of mankind created by human beings apart from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

MoreCoffee said:

It does not matter in which language 1 & 2 Maccabees were first written. What matters is that the Church recognises in them the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the authorship of God. Once any part of the holy scriptures is made "holy" by its alleged pedigree, its alleged "original language", the opinions of scholars, the traditions of Judaism or the assessment of individuals who started a church or movement then the whole of canonical holy scripture becomes a thoroughly human enterprise with no more value than any human enterprise. If the holiness of the holy scriptures is subject to human evaluation rather than Church teaching they become as holy as the Quran or any other work of mankind created by human beings apart from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Nice reply!
Very succinct.
Very clear.

NathanH83 said:

That's why the early church accepted it as scripture. Even Martin Luther called it scripture.

Click to expand...

1. Even if the book was written in Hebrew, I find it absurd to assume that anything written in Hebrew is ERGO the inerrant, fully-canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. Consider that several books mentioned SPECIFICALLY BY NAME in the Bible itself were very likely written in Hebrew, books such as The Book of the Wars of the Lord, The Acts of Solomon, the Acts of Uziah, the Acts of the Kings of Israel, Annals of King David, the Book of Gad, the Book of Jashar, etc. - ALL books quoted and referenced in the OT itself by Jews). I reject that because it is true they were written in Hebrew, read and used by Jews, and mentioned specifically and by name in the Bible itself, thus they MUST be accepted by all Christians everywhere and in every time as THE inerrant, fully-canonical (for that use), inscripturated words of God. I find your rationale to be silly.


2. This is specifically what Luther wrote concerning the 8 books he INCLUDED in his biblical tome but as Deuterocanonical: "These are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read." Luther never argued that every useful book is thus the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. He never argued that every book used by some Jews and/or some Christians are thus the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. They may be USEFUL! But for Luther (unlike you) "useful" does not equal "fully canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God and must legally be required to appear in all tomes sold with the word "BIBLE" on the cover and as equal to every other thing in between the covers thereof."



.

Josiah said:

I find it absurd to assume that anything written in Hebrew is ERGO the inerrant, fully-canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God.

Click to expand...

Is that implied?