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

[Andrew]

So do I.


Not as far as I know. If he was, then Jesus excluded the third part ... the Writings (which come after the Law and the Prophets) including books like Kings and Chronicles and Psalms.

These also seem to have nothing to do with Maccabee.

Maccabees was read and taught along with Gospel and along with the old testament from the get-go... by greek speaking Christians.. not just because it was in a Greek library either but because it was to them the standard scriptural truth held among many and not just "half scriptural truths".. held among the many..., if not then what were the Christians even preaching if they had no guidance from God and no words to quote to testify against the unbelieving Jews?
Did God graft in the Gentiles while also keeping them in the dark of the Hebrew Holy books?

If anything our Sovereign Lord prepared the Gentile world for Christ's coming..

The reason why Christians and converts alike were teaching from books from the Sacred Hebrew-to-Greek scriptures is likely due to what they had available and by what they considered Holy and divine !

also Maccabees for certain contains the following

1. Fulfilment of prophecy (Daniel 11)

and

2. Miracle from God ("feast of dedication")

 

[Andrew]

... the Writings (which come after the Law and the Prophets) including books like Kings and Chronicles and Psalms

What are these Writings? Only Kings, Chronicles and Psalms? How could I possibly know the difference between 'non writings' and "Writings" using only my Greek translation?

(Assuming I am a 1rst Century Christian who can only understand Greek, either Jew or Gentile)

 

[NathanH83]

Nothing was insinuated.

“... so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house [of God;] yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'” [Luke 11:50-51]

Jesus came right out and said it.
Zechariah was the last prophet whose blood was shed that would be charged against that generation.
Jesus specifically excluded all of the ’martyrs‘ in Maccabees as ‘prophets’ (one who speaks for God) and whose blood would be charged against the unbelieving generation for rejecting the Messiah and killing the Saints.

How can YOU claim that Maccabees speaks for God as “God breathed holy scripture” when JESUS denies that Maccabees was a prophet (one that speaks for God)?

That is how this ties to the OP.
No, the Catholics did not invent Maccabees, the Hellenistic Jews wrote Maccabees. The Catholics are just one of the groups that mistakes a history book for inspired scripture.

Jesus did not say “all the prophets who ever have lived or who ever will live.”

Jesus said, “all the prophets from this point to that point.”

When my work tells me to “reject ALL the Cylinder Assemblies that were manufactured from January 2016 through December 2018”....Are they telling me to reject ALL of cylinder assemblies in our inventory?

No. They’re telling me to reject the ones within that range. Parts manufactured in 2019 would NOT be included within that range. Just because they used the word “ALL” in their instructions does not mean that all the cylinders in our inventory should be rejected.

You are right that there were no prophets in the days of the Maccabees. 1 Maccabees says 3 times that prophets ceased to appear among them. But you are wrong to say that Zechariah was the last prophet. John the Baptist was a prophet, and so was Jesus. So no, Zechariah is NOT the last prophet. So I really don’t know why you keep saying that.

 

[Josiah]

None of the ECF published official lists of cannon, only Church denominations create lists of cannon to include or exclude books from. The ECF just quote from books in letters.

CORRECT.


Three or four individuals over the first 3 or 4 CENTURIES wrote about what books SOME Christians USE, but not one ever gave self the authority to speak for God and/or the whole church on Earth as to what is and is not the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every sense to say the Books of Moses. None had that ego. None did so. It wouldn't matter if they did because no individual mere man is THE CHURCH or GOD.


It may trouble SOME Protestants, but GOD never sent out a memo to all Christians as to what books are and are not the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every sense to say the Books of Moses. And NEVER has THE CHURCH ever authoritatively, officially declared such either. SOME denominations have done so for themselves (but not before the 16th Century) but of those that in SOME way include SOME (but never all) DEUTEROcanonical books, none agree with any other. The ONLY time two denominations agree on this is if they follow Calvin's list of 66 and no DEUTEROcanoncial books.



Our friends keep ignoring/evading not only the above but also...

1. Just because a book is quoted or used has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it ergo being the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every sense to say the Books of Moses. Even today, Christians use MILLIONS of books (some modern "Evangelicals" also use clips of movies, TV shows, music concerts, even cartoons).

2. Just because a reading is included in one of the THOUSANDS of different lectionaries has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with all the books included being the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every sense to say the Books of Moses. Even today, Anglicans and Lutherans sometimes have lectionary readings from books which they do not - NOT - accept as canonical AT ALL.

3. They entirely ignore that historically - for many CENTURIES - there were LEVELS of canonicity. I agree that's largely been abandon in the last 400 years or so, but until then, there was 2 or 3 LEVELS of such: Canonical "spoken in favor", Canonical "spoken against" and DEUTEROcanonical. All were at times spoken of as Scripture and even as canonical but they were at different levels.

4. They seem to not know that books didn't exist in the Early Church (they hadn't been invented yet) so there was no tome with "BIBLE" written on the front cover in nice imitation gold letters. They keep speaking of "the Bible" without seeming to know they just refers to BOOKS. Yeah, for a couple of centuries (10% of Christian history maybe?) some countries legally required publishers to sell Bibles with only certain books in them (and at times only certain translations) but no one has done that in centuries and that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with GOD or THE CHURCH autboritatively, officially declaring what is and is not the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every sense to say the Books of Moses.


Rather than acknowledging the reality, new threads on the same thing keep being perpetuated.... on and on and on.... never seeming to actually engage... never really addressing why two contemporary individuals should tell GOD and THE CHURCH (retroactively) what is and is not the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every sense to say the Books of Moses cuz they currently feel it. And never telling us why it even matters if the books THEY currently feel should be somehow "in" - what teaching is thus heretical or dogma. I think there are bigger fish in the sea. For 2000 years, the OOC and EOC and RCC never agreed on this issue - and none of them cared because they all realized, none of these books matter much. For 1000 years, most Catholic tomes had the Epistle to the Leodiceans in it; no one cared because that book just didn't matter.

What does any of this have to do with Maccabees?

What does ANYTHING our friend bring up in these endless threads matter? What I see are endless diversions and evasions...4



Blessings on your Lenten season....


- Josiah




.

 

[atpollard]

Assuming I am a 1rst Century Christian who can only understand Greek, either Jew or Gentile

Are you a first century christian who only understands Greek?
If not, then this is not really a problem that you need to be concerned with or I need to waste effort attempting to solve, is it.

However, I do not want you to be overly concerned about it, so I will tell you that the information was passed down by word of mouth and memorized by the Levites and the Pharisees and the Scribes. It was only written down after the destruction of the temple and the terrible persecution because there was a danger that the oral teachings would be lost forever. So as a Greek speaking Jew, you would have been taught from childhood about the Law, the Prophets and the Writings and would understand the hierarchy within them. Moses gave the Law directly from God, so no Prophet of God can ever contradict the Law. Therefore the Torah (Law) is greater than the Prophets. The Prophets speak the message of God, so the Prophets are greater than the Writings and no Writings can ever contradict the Law and Prophets. Therefore, the Psalms contain truth from the heart ... but not every word in Psalms is accurate in the sense that the Torah is true.

I realize that you don’t really care. Your question was a rhetorical attempt to score a point for everyone reading the Septuagint. Just the same, you have your answer and if you really understood it, you would know why Maccabees should not be elevated to the “God breathed” status of the Word of God ... even if the Catholics did not make it up.

 

[atpollard]

So I really don’t know why you keep saying that.

Because no matter how many times I read it or what translation I use, Luke still says that Jesus said it.
I am sorry if that bother’s you, but you will really need to discuss that with the author.

But you are wrong to say that Zechariah was the last prophet.

I actually have been claiming that Zechariah was the last prophet in the OLD TESTAMENT. As I have already explained more than once, John the Baptist is in the NEW TESTAMENT.

So now, just “talk to the hand”!

 

[Andrew]

Are you a first century christian who only understands Greek?
If not, then this is not really a problem that you need to be concerned with or I need to waste effort attempting to solve, is it.

However, I do not want you to be overly concerned about it, so I will tell you that the information was passed down by word of mouth and memorized by the Levites and the Pharisees and the Scribes. It was only written down after the destruction of the temple and the terrible persecution because there was a danger that the oral teachings would be lost forever. So as a Greek speaking Jew, you would have been taught from childhood about the Law, the Prophets and the Writings and would understand the hierarchy within them. Moses gave the Law directly from God, so no Prophet of God can ever contradict the Law. Therefore the Torah (Law) is greater than the Prophets. The Prophets speak the message of God, so the Prophets are greater than the Writings and no Writings can ever contradict the Law and Prophets. Therefore, the Psalms contain truth from the heart ... but not every word in Psalms is accurate in the sense that the Torah is true.

I realize that you don’t really care. Your question was a rhetorical attempt to score a point for everyone reading the Septuagint. Just the same, you have your answer and if you really understood it, you would know why Maccabees should not be elevated to the “God breathed” status of the Word of God ... even if the Catholics did not make it up.

What about Clement of Rome who wasn't a Jew in the first century? Did the Pharisees and Sadducees sit down with him and orally give him the OT through memory?
Sounds a bit "out there" imo, it's more logical that they used the Greek Translations, even if I were a Greek speaking Jew in the first century

 

[atpollard]

What about Clement of Rome who wasn't a Jew in the first century? Did the Pharisees and Sadducees sit down with him and orally give him the OT through memory?
Sounds a bit "out there" imo, it's more logical that they used the Greek Translations, even if I were a Greek speaking Jew in the first century

You should go back and review your question. I believe you wanted to know how this hypothetical person would know which books were included in the “Writings” (as distinct from the “Law” and the “Prophets”).

Is it really inconceivable that Clement memorized the names of the books of the Law, the Prophets and the Writings as a child the way modern children memorize the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament?

 

[Andrew]

You should go back and review your question. I believe you wanted to know how this hypothetical person would know which books were included in the “Writings” (as distinct from the “Law” and the “Prophets”).

Is it really inconceivable that Clement memorized the names of the books of the Law, the Prophets and the Writings as a child the way modern children memorize the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament?

My point precisely, why then would he mention the "blessed Judith" along with Esther and especially if he was a gentile?

As he a child gentile he would have to use the Septuagint, if this is not the case then he was learned in Judith some other way, and since Judith and Maccabees aren't even Jewish canon (per late first century) I wonder.. because they were part of the Greek translations

 

[atpollard]

My point precisely, why then would he mention the "blessed Judith" along with Esther and especially if he was a gentile?

As he a child gentile he would have to use the Septuagint, if this is not the case then he was learned in Judith some other way, and since Judith and Maccabees aren't even Jewish canon (per late first century) I wonder.. because they were part of the Greek translations

I agree that the errors of Clement were likely due to his willingness to “swallow camels” in the Septuagint no matter how badly they contradicted the inspired writings of Moses and the Prophets of God and the Gospels and the Apostolic Letters ... just because they were included in the most popular HELLENISTIC JEWISH religious book compilation of the day.

It is a mistake none of the Jewish Apostles would make (or did make).
Paul had MEMORIZED all of the Old Testament by the age of twelve, and likely read and wrote Greek, Latin and Hebrew. Notice that Paul never made the folly of calling Maccabees “Scripture” or quoting from it as “it is written” (like Paul does with REAL scripture).

 

[Andrew]

I agree that the errors of Clement were likely due to his willingness to “swallow camels” in the Septuagint no matter how badly they contradicted the inspired writings of Moses and the Prophets of God and the Gospels and the Apostolic Letters ... just because they were included in the most popular HELLENISTIC JEWISH religious book compilation of the day.

It is a mistake none of the Jewish Apostles would make (or did make).
Paul had MEMORIZED all of the Old Testament by the age of twelve, and likely read and wrote Greek, Latin and Hebrew. Notice that Paul never made the folly of calling Maccabees “Scripture” or quoting from it as “it is written” (like Paul does with REAL scripture).

How do "they" contradict the Law and the Prophets?
If anything Maccabees fulfills a prophecy, witnesses a miracle, and Judas was looking forward to the Messiah who Resurrects the dead thus why he "commemorated" his fallen men by taking up offerings in "hopes of a better resurrection", not that it did the men any good but the emphasis was on the "Resurrection" and the Messiah to come..

Keep in mind that the Sadducees who became the High Priesthood of the second Temple rites REJECTED the Resurrection

 

[NathanH83]

Because no matter how many times I read it or what translation I use, Luke still says that Jesus said it.
I am sorry if that bother’s you, but you will really need to discuss that with the author.


I actually have been claiming that Zechariah was the last prophet in the OLD TESTAMENT. As I have already explained more than once, John the Baptist is in the NEW TESTAMENT.

So now, just “talk to the hand”!

So Zechariah is not the last prophet then. So stop calling him the last prophet.
Jesus said that the time of the prophets goes right up to John. He does not say that it stopped at Zechariah.

You want to make this distinction between Old Testament prophets and New Testament prophets. But Jesus says that the prophets prophesied until John. The Old flows right into the New.

 

[NathanH83]

I agree that the errors of Clement were likely due to his willingness to “swallow camels” in the Septuagint no matter how badly they contradicted the inspired writings of Moses and the Prophets of God and the Gospels and the Apostolic Letters ... just because they were included in the most popular HELLENISTIC JEWISH religious book compilation of the day.

It is a mistake none of the Jewish Apostles would make (or did make).
Paul had MEMORIZED all of the Old Testament by the age of twelve, and likely read and wrote Greek, Latin and Hebrew. Notice that Paul never made the folly of calling Maccabees “Scripture” or quoting from it as “it is written” (like Paul does with REAL scripture).

The context of Hebrews 11:35 implies that the events of 2 Maccabees 7 is a part of Biblical history.

 

[atpollard]

The context of Hebrews 11:35 implies that the events of The Jewish War, Book 7, Chapter 9 is a part of Biblical history ... but we do not make the mistake of quoting the work of Josephus as Holy Scripture even though it was available in both Hebrew and Greek in the First Century (Because Josephus was not inspired by God to write Holy Scripture).

 

[atpollard]

So Zechariah is not the last prophet then. So stop calling him the last prophet.
Jesus said that the time of the prophets goes right up to John. He does not say that it stopped at Zechariah.

You want to make this distinction between Old Testament prophets and New Testament prophets. But Jesus says that the prophets prophesied until John. The Old flows right into the New.

"For this reason also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they will kill and [some] they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house [of God;] yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'” [Luke 11:49-51 NASB]

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.” - Martin Luther​