Doesn’t the book of Hebrews reference Maccabees?

[Faith]

Yup.
Maccabees is real history, and fulfills Daniel’s prophecies.
What a tragedy that so many Christians are unfamiliar with it.
And yea, pinacle’s comments are really off-the-wall and unrelated.

That’s why I don’t reply to him anymore,

 

[NathanH83]

That’s why I don’t reply to him anymore,

Good idea

 

[Andrew]

A minor holiday to mourn with dedication to light and the miracle of oil.
And please refrain from accusations sir andrew.

My motives are pure if you are willing to recieve.

Jews do not find the "NT" repugnant.
And you should avoid speaking for a nation in the future.

Blessings Always

Also NO, the Feast of Dedication had NOTHING to do with the supposed "Miracle", Hanuka replaced the Feast of Dedication (which was a celebration of the Temple being reclaimed/re-DEDICATED via the Maccabean Revolt)

"Hanuka" was likely an attempt to censor the origins of the dedication since Maccabees was all of a sudden barred from the Jewish catalog of sacred scripture in 90AD with the first ever "canon" conveniently just as the first Christian began using the septuagint to prove to the Jews that Jesus is the promised King

 

[Josiah]

He read the Greek translations of SCRIPTURE which included Maccabees.

... and your proof is? Please post that.



.

 

[Josiah]

Paul’s second letter to Timothy:

“From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:15-17)

Yup. Where does it say "First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees"?

Just quote the verse that mentions that Timothy read ANY book, of ANY time, written by ANYONE ANYWHERE with "Maccabees" in the title.

 

[Josiah]

Hebrews 11:35 says that these men were:

1. Tortured.
2. Given a chance to be delivered.
3. Refused to be delivered.
4. Hoped for a better resurrection.

The story in 2 Maccabees 7 says that they were:

1. Tortured by king Antiochus.
2. Were given a chance to be delivered by eating pork.
3. Refused to be delivered in honor of God’s law.
4. Specifically said that they hoped that the King of the World will raise them up some day.

The story in 2 Maccabees chapter 7 fits on all 4 points. There’s nothing else in the entire Old Testament that fits so perfectly. If you can’t, or won’t make that obvious connection, then you’re being what the Bible calls “willfully ignorant.”

Ah. Solid proof that Hebrews does not even relate the same things as Maccabees. So, as you've proven, no book reference in Hebrrews.... not relating the same history.

But again, I find it beyond absurd, incredibly illogical, to insist that if two books containing history (out of MILLIONS, perhaps BILLIONS of such books) seem to convey words about some event (or now you are saying NOT similar words) THUS, ERGO, one ( is making a book reference to the other (even though THE ESSENTIAL, MANDATED, REQUIRED part of a book reference is listing the book by name) and MUST have regarded all o0her books concerning the same event as the inerrant, normative, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. By your apologetic, do you realize all the MILLIONS of books that mention Jesus are all Scripture? All the millions of bo0oks that mention WW 2 are thus Scripture. It's an amazingly silly apologetic. I don't challenge that Hebrews MAY be talking about some event that one of the Maccabee books also s[eaks.... I just find your "logic" beyond absurd when you insist that if any two books speak of the same event, ergo one has a specific BOOK REFERENCE in it and all those books MUST be the inerrant, normative, canonical, divinely-inspired words of God (Scripture). I have several books that mention the Resurrection of Christ.... very few of them would you consider Scripture, so I don't think you accept your own point.




.

 

[Josiah]

Maccabees is real history, and fulfills Daniel’s prophecies.
What a tragedy that so many Christians are unfamiliar with it.

Now THAT I fully agree with. And of course, Luther INCLUDED two of the Maccabee books in his translation, aa did the Church of England (the Anglican and Episcopal Church) and the original KJV. My own Lutheran Church did an extensive study (prepared by our Concordia Publishing House) on this.

Here's where I disagree with you. Because a book contains "real history" ERGO it is the inerrant, normative, canonical, divinely-inspired words of God (Scripture) and must be included in all tomes with "BIBLE" written on the cover and be considered equal in every sense with say Romans or Luke. And that if two history books seem to convey the same historical event, ERGO both must be Scripture and one contains a book reference to the other.




.

 

[Andrew]

Yup. Where does it say "First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees"?

Just quote the verse that mentions that Timothy read ANY book, of ANY time, written by ANYONE ANYWHERE with "Maccabees" in the title.

Read the quote again, MACCABEES IS FOUND IN ALL VERSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT, it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Maccabees would be mysteriously missing in the HOLY SCRIPTURES (non masoretic) that Jesus and the Apostles quote from.

 

[Origen]

Read the quote again, MACCABEES IS FOUND IN ALL VERSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT,

That is not correct. In Codex Vaticanus Maccabees is missing. Codex Sinaiticus contains 1st Maccabees and 4th Maccabees but are missing 2nd and 3rd Maccabees. Codex Alexandrinus contains 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Maccabees.

​

 

[Andrew]

That is not correct. In Codex Vaticanus Maccabees is missing. Codex Sinaiticus contains 1st Maccabee and 4th Maccabee but is missing 2nd and 3rd Maccabees. Codex Alexandrinus contains 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Maccabees.

​

Timothy didn't read from anything other than his own tongue, the original greek that Vaticanus was translated from no longer exist, my point is that the majority of Septuagint readers of the time contained the books of Maccabees

 

[NathanH83]

That is not correct. In Codex Vaticanus Maccabees is missing. Codex Sinaiticus contains 1st Maccabee and 4th Maccabee but is missing 2nd and 3rd Maccabees. Codex Alexandrinus contains 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Maccabees.

​

Do you think Vaticanus contained Maccabees originally, but had it ripped out at some point in time? I know it included Tobit and Judith.

 

[Origen]

Timothy didn't read from anything other than his own tongue, the original greek that Vaticanus was translated from no longer exist, my point is that the majority of Septuagint readers of the time contained the books of Maccabees

First I don't know where you get your information but we have the original Codex Vaticanus. You can look at it online. Scholars have examined it.

Manuscript GA 03 - CSNTM

www.csntm.org

Second, one does not translate from Greek to Greek. Vaticanus is in Greek. All they would have had to do was copy the text.

Third, you claimed "MACCABEES IS FOUND IN ALL VERSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT." This is simply not true and the manuscript (i.e. codex) evidence proves your claim is not correct. The facts are the facts. In Codex Vaticanus Maccabees is missing. Codex Sinaiticus contains 1st Maccabee and 4th Maccabee but is missing 2nd and 3rd Maccabees. Codex Alexandrinus contains 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Maccabees.

There are numerous sources which list the books found in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus. If you like I could provide them to you.

 

[Andrew]

First I don't know where you get your information but we have the original Codex Vaticanus. You can look at it online. Scholars have examined it.

Manuscript GA 03 - CSNTM

www.csntm.org

Second, one does not translate from Greek to Greek. Vaticanus is in Greek. All they would have had to do was copy the text.

Third, you claimed "MACCABEES IS FOUND IN ALL VERSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT." This is simply not true and the manuscript (i.e. codex) evidence proves your claim is not correct. The facts are the facts. In Codex Vaticanus Maccabees is missing. Codex Sinaiticus contains 1st Maccabee and 4th Maccabee but is missing 2nd and 3rd Maccabees. Codex Alexandrinus contains 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Maccabees.

There are numerous sources which list the books found in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus. If you like I could provide them to you.

Codex Vaticanus wasn't complete tho, they had to use secondary sources to fill in all the gaps, for all we know Maccabees could have been in the original but went bye bye with all the other missing content

Ps my mistake, I was thinking of the latin translation of the codex, wasnt Jerome sent to fix the problem of the incomplete codex by going straight to the Hebrew?

 

[Andrew]

Do you think Vaticanus contained Maccabees originally, but had it ripped out at some point in time? I know it included Tobit and Judith.

Yep, it took centuries for them to complete the codex using secondary sources for that exact reason (missing content)

 

[Origen]

Codex Vaticanus wasn't complete tho, they had to use secondary sources to fill in all the gaps

Only the New Testament is incomplete. It breaks off in Hebrews 9. The whole of the Old Testament is intact.

 

[Origen]

Yep, it took centuries for them to complete the codex using secondary sources for that exact reason (missing content)

Codex Vaticanus is dated to the 4th century. It did not take centuries to complete.

 

[Andrew]

Only the New Testament is incomplete. It breaks off in Hebrews 9. The whole of the Old Testament is intact.

Then my sources are wrong, my apologies, there were no greek scribes to be fair so im sure the mass productions of the Hebrew to Greek were freelance and Maccabees would have been of a later edition as it was a baby compared to the rest of the OT books, I can see how the older well known books were intact.

Origen what are your thoughts on the tortured men mentioned by Paul in Hebrews?

 

[Origen]

Then my sources are wrong, my apologies,

Thank you.

there were no greek scribes to be fair

???

Maccabees would have been of a later edition

The O.T. is intact. There is no evidence to support such a claim.

The fact is the books in codices varied especially when the whole of the codex is considered.

it was a baby compared to the rest of the OT books

Vaticanus is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) codices of the LXX. There are only fragments of the LXX that are older and nothing that are even close to providing the full text of any book.

 

[pinacled]

Then my sources are wrong, my apologies, there were no greek scribes to be fair so im sure the mass productions of the Hebrew to Greek were freelance and Maccabees would have been of a later edition as it was a baby compared to the rest of the OT books, I can see how the older well known books were intact.

Origen what are your thoughts on the tortured men mentioned by Paul in Hebrews?

The tortured mentioned in Hebrews are the 100 prophets hid in caves and also those that defied jezebel.
1 kings 18:4

Exegesis PaRDeS

30 Bible verses about Killing Prophets

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

 

[Josiah]

Read the quote again, MACCABEES IS FOUND IN ALL VERSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT,

Prove that every corpus of Greek books included First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees

Prove that Timothy read SOME possible corpus of books also found in some collections of the LXX. And that First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccebees was so included.

Prove that Timothy or Timothy's parents or Paul considered all such books as the inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture).

No where does the Bible state that Timothy or anyone else regarded whatever and all in the LXX as SCRIPTURE. NO WHERE does the Bible state WHAT books Timothy or his parents or Paul regarded as Scripture.

You need to provide a LIST of every book Timothy ever read.... and which ones HE or his parents or Paul regarded as The inerrant, canonical, normative, inscripturated words of God (thus Scripture). I've read the entire Bible, I've also read HUNDREDS of OTHER books. So, I've read the Scripture...that does not mean I THEREFORE read the Epistle of Barnabus and regard it as Scripture....nor does it mean I did NOT read Cat in the Hat.

LOTS of huge, entirely unsubstantiated, incredible LEAPS, my brother.



.