Did the Catholics make up the book of 1 Maccabees out of their imagination?

[Albion]

Catholics made it up. That’s why we should avoid reading it.

It's amazing that people online will just invent the most bizarre theories with no evidence, no history to back it up, nobody to quote in support, and not even a plausible reason for what is alleged to have happened.

 

[NathanH83]

It's amazing that people online will just invent the most bizarre theories with no evidence, no history to back it up, nobody to quote in support, and not even a plausible reason for what is alleged to have happened.

You know Catholics added those books in 1546 at the council of Trent. Those books weren’t there before that. Catholics added them.

 

[Lamb]

You know Catholics added those books in 1546 at the council of Trent. Those books weren’t there before that. Catholics added them.

Which books would those be?

 

[Josiah]

The reason it's absurd is that 1 Maccabees was written before the Catholic Church existed. You can argue whether it should be accepted into the canon. You can argue how accurate the history is. But it surely wasn't made up by the Catholic church, and the historians I'm aware of believe the events are more or less historical, though you may or may not agree with the attitude towards them shown by the author(s).

Correct.

The ABSURDITY is the premise that because some book speaks of some historical event that likely happened, ERGO it is certain that THE CHURCH has authoritatively declared that book to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice at least equal to the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. We see that apologetic in thread after thread started by our friend. It's entirely absurd. There are MILLIONS of books that are more-or-less historical, MILLIONS that speak of World War II (which very likely DID happen), it's just laughably absurd to insist that ERGO some Ecumenical Council of the whole church on earth authoritatively has declared all those to be canonical words of God that MUST be in any tome with the word "BIBLE" on the front cover.


There's another equally ABSURD assumption they make when it comes to 1 Maccs. The claim is that the event they speak of happened BECAUSE this book mentions it (if the Book isn't canonical, then the event didn't happen)... whereas the reality is the event happened because it happenerd! Now, maybe that's recorded in book(s) but the recording is dependent on the event, not the other way around. Jesus rose from the dead.... the Easter Miracle happened.... now that's recorded in millions of books, millions of books speak of this and declare it's historicity, but just because the
Book of Mormon records it does not mean the Easter Miracle happened because the Book of Mormon mentions it or that therefore the Book of Mormon MUST be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Books of Moses or Epistle to the Romans. Sometimes I wonder if these people actually READ the claims and arguments they make...





.

 

[Albion]

You know Catholics added those books in 1546 at the council of Trent. Those books weren’t there before that. Catholics added them.

The Catholic Church included them as Scripture long before Trent, and so did the Eastern churches. It was then that the Catholic church officially canonized them, or to be more correct, some of them.

But the idea that before Trent "those books weren't there" is absolutely false and it's easily proven by reference to their use by the church prior to Trent.

 

[NathanH83]

The Catholic Church included them as Scripture long before Trent, and so did the Eastern churches. It was then that the Catholic church officially canonized them, or to be more correct, some of them.

But the idea that before Trent "those books weren't there" is absolutely false and it's easily proven by reference to their use by the church prior to Trent.

Either way, the Catholics added them. They weren’t in the original Hebrew. Because books like 1 Maccabees and Sirach were never in Hebrew originally.

 

[Albion]

Either way, the Catholics added them.

It's not 'either way.' The idea you stated that the Catholic church added them in 1546 and that they were not included with the rest of the Bible previously is flat-out wrong.

 

[atpollard]

So what if a story such as Maccabees contained a miracle from God that sparked a Holiday that even Jesus celebrated?
Still not divinely inspired?
Why? Because protestants said so? Obviously the Catholics couldn't have added Maccabees, Jews did BEFORE Christ..
Second Canon is still Canon, I have three Catholic bibles leftover from my grandma and mother, they all agree that the so called "Apocrypha" books contained were divine and they give the same insight as to how and why it was dropped after the fact but are still considered canon or else it would not be included in the HOLY BIBLE as it were in KJV 1611.. right there dead smack in between the old and new testament..

So are you saying that Jesus got it wrong and Zechariah WASN’T the last Prophet martyred whose blood those that rejected Jesus stood guilty of? Jesus should have added the blood of all those killed in Maccabees? Is that your final response to the quote from Jesus that I presented in answer to YOUR question?

First you ask if Zechariah was an Apostle.
Then you just forge on with your insistence that Maccabees belongs in the Bible because the Jews (the blind guides that murdered Christ) and the Roman Catholic Church (at the council of Trent a millennium and a half later) say it does.
All while ignoring what Jesus had to say completely.
Color me unconvinced.

 

[NathanH83]

It's not 'either way.' The idea you stated that the Catholic church added them in 1546 and that they were not included with the rest of the Bible previously is flat-out wrong.

If they were originally included in everyone’s Bibles, then why aren’t they there now?

 

[NathanH83]

So are you saying that Jesus got it wrong and Zechariah WASN’T the last Prophet martyred whose blood those that rejected Jesus stood guilty of? Jesus should have added the blood of all those killed in Maccabees? Is that your final response to the quote from Jesus that I presented in answer to YOUR question?

First you ask if Zechariah was an Apostle.
Then you just forge on with your insistence that Maccabees belongs in the Bible because the Jews (the blind guides that murdered Christ) and the Roman Catholic Church (at the council of Trent a millennium and a half later) say it does.
All while ignoring what Jesus had to say completely.
Color me unconvinced.

Zechariah was the last prophet, huh?
Let’s see what Jesus says about that...


“But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet.” -Matthew 11:9

“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.”
-Matthew 11:13


Please, do go on telling me how Zechariah was the last prophet....

Because, of course, John the Baptist was not a prophet.....except that Jesus said he was.

 

[kiwimac]

After all, the New Testament never mentions anything in the apocrypha. So the Catholics must have made it up.

Nope, 1 Maccabees was written in Hebrew, not Latin and by a Jewish author around the time of the Hasmonean dynasty, circa the latter part of the 2nd century BC. They could not have been authored by the Catholic Church.

 

[NathanH83]

Nope, 1 Maccabees was written in Hebrew, not Latin and by a Jewish author around the time of the Hasmonean dynasty, circa the latter part of the 2nd century BC. They could not have been authored by the Catholic Church.

There’s no proof 1 Maccabees was written in Hebrew. What makes you think that?

 

[kiwimac]

There’s no proof 1 Maccabees was written in Hebrew. What makes you think that?

Because of when it was written and it's subject-matter.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[hedrick]

Zechariah was the last prophet, huh?
Let’s see what Jesus says about that...

This whole discussion is so weird it's almost embarrassing to participate. The reference is probably to Luke 11:51. But that's not a list of prophets, since Abel isn't a prophet.

From the Anchor Bible commentary on Luke:

"This is usually understood as a reference to Zechariah the priest, the son of Jehoiada, who was stoned by the people whom he addressed as God’s mouthpiece “in the court of the house of the Lord,” during the reign of King Joash (2 Chr 24:20–22). He was not usually regarded as a prophet—no more than Abel was. "

There is a parallel in Matthew. This explanation assumes that Matthew added "the son of Barachiah" as a clarification, but that he was wrong. The reason for assuming it is the priest is because he died in a way consistent with Jesus' reference, and there's no reason to think that the prophet did. There's also no reason to think that Jesus intended to say anything about the canon.

 

[Josiah]

If they were originally included in everyone’s Bibles, then why aren’t they there now?


.

Your "if" is wrong.
The premise is wrong.
The conditional clause of your sentence is unmet because it's wrong.

SOME deuterocanonical books were included in SOME tomes with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. SOME.... SOME.....

But NO denomination officially embraced ANYTHING until the 15th or 16th Century at the earliest, and then ONLY for that one singular, individual denomination... and no denomination that did this agreed with any other. Or with you. Or with the LXX.




.;

 

[Albion]

If they were originally included in everyone’s Bibles, then why aren’t they there now?

They ARE there in the editions used by the Roman Catholic , Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches.

 

[Josiah]

They ARE there in the editions used by the Roman Catholic , Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches.

Actually, the current RCC, EOC and OOC tomes are all different. NONE of them agree with each other or the Nathan or with the LXX.


.

 

[Andrew]

I thought Odes and 4th Esdras was the only difference?
Odes was created way later and I am sure they are aware of that, isn't it basically a cut and paste meditation of OT scripture?

 

[NathanH83]

They ARE there in the editions used by the Roman Catholic , Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches.

But those denominations don’t see miracles.

 

[tango]

Sometimes I wonder if these people actually READ the claims and arguments they make...

I don't wonder so much about whether people read what they write as whether they understand basic logic and logical fallacies.