Doesn’t the book of Hebrews reference Maccabees?

[Andrew]

I would have to agree with you. The author was writing to Hebrews, Jews and referred to the Old Testament in the writings. So the quotes would have come from Scripture rather than a non canonical writing.

Exactly, except there was no such canon established in Paul's time, not until at least 90 AD after the destruction of the 2nd Temple, a more proper way to put it would be something like...

"So the quotes would have come from Hebrew scripture rather than secular literature"

 

[Origen]

Context shows us that Paul was addressing hebrews (not pagan gentiles) and was using hebrew scripture to provide examples of strong devotion and Faith in this sermon, he does not use secular literature or poets like he did with the pagans, he is using what the Jews relate to

Since you state that Paul "was using hebrew scripture to provide examples of strong devotion and Faith" and "he does not use secular literature or poets" WHERE in Scripture does it states "they were sawn in two" (Hebrews 11:37)? Please provide the Hebrew Scripture source.

he does not use secular literature or poets like he did with the pagans, he is using what the Jews relate to

But we do have examples of Paul quoting "secular literature or poets" to fellow believers.

Paul quotes Epimenides to Titus (Titus 1:12) and he quotes Menander to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:33).

Let's take a closer look at the citation in 1 Cor. 15:27-34.

27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that sGod may be all in all.

29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 30 Why are we tin danger every hour? 31 I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! 32 What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” 33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” 34 Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.

Here we have a clear example of Paul quoting a non-Scriptural source (bold red) together with (in fact right next to) Scripture (bold yellow) and both epistles were addressed to fellow believers. Therefore, since Paul did use secular literature as a source (to Titus) along with Scripture when addressing the Corinthians, there is no reason why the author of Hebrews could not do the same.

 

[Andrew]

Since you state that Paul "was using hebrew scripture to provide examples of strong devotion and Faith" and "he does not use secular literature or poets" WHERE in Scripture does it states "they were sawn in two" (Hebrews 11:37)? Please provide the Hebrew Scripture source?


But we do have examples of Paul quoting "secular literature or poets" to fellow believers.

Paul quotes Epimenides to Titus (Titus 1:12) and he quotes Menander to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:33).

Let's take a closer look at the citation in 1 Cor. 15:27-34.

27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that sGod may be all in all.

29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 30 Why are we tin danger every hour? 31 I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! 32 What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” 33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” 34 Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.

Here we have a clear example of Paul quoting a non-Scriptural source (bold red) together with (in fact right next to) Scripture (bold yellow) and both letters were addressed to fellow believers. Therefore, since Paul did use secular literature as a source (to Titus) along with Scripture when addressing the Corinthians, there is no reason why the author of Hebrews could not do the same.

Well if one rotten apple of an oral tradition don't spoil the bunch, Paul obviously was speaking of a heroic biblical martyr who's record of martyrdom didn't survive. If it was Manasseh who had Isaiah sawn in two and it was at one time recorded then it would be right where the Bible said it would be, "in the annals of the Kings of Israel", his prayer of repentance had survived.. we just don't have the original Hebrew text that the LXX and Masoretic Hebrew were based on.
I never bothered looking up the supposed judeo-Christian apocrypha book "Ascension of Isaiah" because frankly works that are tossed way in the back that were never apart of Christian Biblical history aren't worth it.

As for Hebrews, Paul was a hellenized Jew and was well adapt at stirring up the Spirit of his listeners of both worlds, Greek and Hebrew, since Corinthians was a mixture of Jew and Gentile he used his "worldly" knowledge to his advantage for preaching an all inclusive sermon to a "worldly" Christian church, speaking a little of this and a little of that.

 

[Josiah]

Hold up, OF COURSE Christian letters and testimonials etc circulated among Christians!

Brother, there goes your apologetic.....


It's been argued that one of the several Maccabee books must be accepted as the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God BECAUSE it was used and read by early Christians. Well, a point evaded/ignored.... my brother.... LOTS of books were circulated throughout early Christiandom..... Some of them were SPECIFICALLY CALLED "SCRIPTURE" by several esteemed Fathers. A small sample of such are: The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas. The Didache, the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of James, the Apocalypse of Peter and several more. Letters from Clement and Ignatius and several others were WIDELY read and circulated all over Christiandom. So, the rubric "If circulated, ergo the holy, inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture)" is valid and sound, then you need to be arguing equally for a LOT of other books....


It's also been argued that one or more of the Maccabee books would not be known today if it were not the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and universally embraced as such. That's just silly. There are many books available today older than any of the Maccabee books, available and read today.


It's also been argued that one of the Maccabees books MUST be the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) and universally embraced as such because Hebrews includes a book reference to 2 Maccabees.... it was later (finally) admitted it does not (as anyone who can read knows). Then the apologetic changed to this: if two books seem to address the same historic event, then both must ergo be the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and be in our Bible. But obviously, we'd then have MILLIONS of books in our Bible.


I don't know where our brother is getting this (absurd and incorrect) stuff.... but I encourage and counsel you, my friend, to examine it carefully.






.

 

[Andrew]

Brother, there goes your apologetic.....


It's been argued that one of the several Maccabee books must be accepted as the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God BECAUSE it was used and read by early Christians. Well, a point evaded/ignored.... my brother.... LOTS of books were circulated throughout early Christiandom..... Some of them were SPECIFICALLY CALLED "SCRIPTURE" by several esteemed Fathers. A small sample of such are: The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas. The Didache, the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of James, the Apocalypse of Peter and several more. Letters from Clement and Ignatius and several others were WIDELY read and circulated all over Christiandom. So, the rubric "If circulated, ergo the holy, inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture)" is valid and sound, then you need to be arguing equally for a LOT of other books....


It's also been argued that one or more of the Maccabee books would not be known today if it were not the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and universally embraced as such. That's just silly. There are many books available today older than any of the Maccabee books, available and read today.


It's also been argued that one of the Maccabees books MUST be the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) and universally embraced as such because Hebrews includes a book reference to 2 Maccabees.... it was later (finally) admitted it does not (as anyone who can read knows). Then the apologetic changed to this: if two books seem to address the same historic event, then both must ergo be the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and be in our Bible. But obviously, we'd then have MILLIONS of books in our Bible.


I don't know where our brother is getting this (absurd and incorrect) stuff.... but I encourage and counsel you, my friend, to examine it carefully.






.

You are still talking about NT era books, im talking about OT era books that migrated to the hands of our first Christians and into our Christian bibles which includes the so called "apocrypha" books.
I hate to say it but Josiah this appears to be a straw man argument you keep pushing.. trust me, I'll only continue to clarify again and again what I just said or we can keep going around in circles.

How did any of the books of Maccabees make it into our Christian bibles in the first place? Could it be because the early Christians accepted them?

 

[Josiah]

You are still talking about NT era books, im talking about OT era books

So, if a book was written before 33 AD, it thus must be the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God - but not if it's written after 33 AD? Why does that date of 33 AD make the difference? So you reject the Epistle to the Romans but accept Homer's Odyssey? You accept Psalm 151 but not the Gospel of Matthew? Why do you accept books written before Easter but not after? Why must we accept Psalm 151 because Christians read it and it was written before 33 AD but not the Epistle of Romans because while it too was used by Christians, it was written after 33 AD?

How did any of the books of Maccabees make it into our Christian bibles in the first place?

Many early Christians did NOT accept the Revelation of John - but you do. Many early Christians DID accept the Epistle of Barnabus, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Didache, the Apocalypse of Peter and a LOT of others.... reading them, quoting them, referring to them specifically as "Scripture" But you don't accept them. And the Epistle to the Leodiceans appeared in MANY Bibles well into the Reformation, but you don't accept it either.

Consider the premise, the apologetic our brother keeps promoting (an endless, ever-changing set of them), think about it.... And how incredibly INCONSISTENT he applies that. Consider.


See post 184. This brother's ever-changing arguments are... well.... wrong. Hold them up to examination and they quickly and totally fall apart.




,

 

[Origen]

Well if one rotten apple of an oral tradition don't spoil the bunch Paul obviously was speaking of a heroic biblical martyr who's record of martyrdom didn't survive.

I find that very interesting.

I addressed two claims you made:

(1) Paul "was using hebrew scripture to provide examples of strong devotion and Faith." I asked for a source and you offered none. If your claim is correct concerning "hebrew scripture," then it follows you ought to be able to provide one from "hebrew scripture." That was your claim. You cannot provide one.

(2) Paul "does not use secular literature or poets like he did with the pagans." Both Titus 1:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:33 prove your claim demonstrably false.

Yet your reply is "Well if one rotten apple of an oral tradition don't spoil the bunch Paul obviously was speaking of a heroic biblical martyr who's record of martyrdom didn't survive." Not one bit of evidence to support your claim.

You said Paul "was was using hebrew scripture to provide examples of strong devotion and Faith." You said "using hebrew scripture."

Logically there are only two options. Either your claim is false or some part of the hebrew scripture has been lost. Which one do you prefer?

As for Hebrews, Paul was a hellenized Jew and was well adapt at stirring up the Spirit of his listeners of both worlds, Greek and Hebrew, since Corinthians was a mixture of Jew and Gentile he used his "worldly" knowledge to his advantage for preaching an all inclusive sermon to a "worldly" Christian church, speaking a little of this and a little of that.

You have missed the point, and you are just making excuses. You claimed was Paul "does not use secular literature or poets like he did with the pagans." That claim is not true, it is false. Paul did the very thing you said he does not do. Thus your claim is refuted no matter why Paul did what he did.

 

[Andrew]

So, if a book was written before 33 AD, it thus must be the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God - but not if it's written after 33 AD? Why does that date of 33 AD make the difference? So you reject the Epistle to the Romans but accept Homer's Odyssey? You accept Psalm 151 but not the Gospel of Matthew? Why do you accept books written before Easter but not after? Why must we accept Psalm 151 because Christians read it and it was written before 33 AD but not the Epistle of Romans because while it too was used by Christians, it was written after 33 AD?






Many early Christians did NOT accept the Revelation of John - but you do. Many early Christians DID accept the Epistle of Barnabus, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Didache, the Apocalypse of Peter and a LOT of others.... reading them, quoting them, referring to them specifically as "Scripture" But you don't accept them. And the Epistle to the Leodiceans appeared in MANY Bibles well into the Reformation, but you don't accept it either.

Consider the premise, the apologetic our brother keeps promoting (an endless, ever-changing set of them), think about it.... And how incredibly INCONSISTENT he applies that. Consider.


See post 184. This brother's ever-changing arguments are... well.... wrong. Hold them up to examination and they quickly and totally fall apart.




,

Why can't you answer the original question I asked?

I am asking you how Jewish "apocrypha" got into the Christian bible.

How did books such as the books of Maccabees make it into our bibles especially if the Jews didn't ever accept them?

Why didn't the Christians just add Homers Odyssey, Dr. Seuss Cat in the Hat and Where's Waldo along with all of these other useless books that had no worth to Judaism and even less worth to Christianity?

..... how did Jewish "apocrypha" get into the Christian bible to begin with?

A. Because the Jews accepted them first

Or

B. Because the Jews accepted them first

 

[NathanH83]

Welcome to the forum.

So what is it that you want then? You didn’t specify.

I can provide a link to the PDF with the whole entire 1611 KJV. I can also provide a link to just that page of Hebrews 11. Or the title page. Or a link to the book on Amazon.

What are you asking for?

 

[NathanH83]

Why can't you answer the original question I asked?

I am asking you how Jewish "apocrypha" got into the Christian bible.

How did books such as the books of Maccabees make it into our bibles especially if the Jews didn't ever accept them?

Why didn't the Christians just add Homers Odyssey, Dr. Seuss Cat in the Hat and Where's Waldo along with all of these other useless books that had no worth to Judaism and even less worth to Christianity?

..... how did Jewish "apocrypha" get into the Christian bible to begin with?

A. Because the Jews accepted them first

Or

B. Because the Jews accepted them first

I think it’s because the Jews accepted them at first.

The Jews included them in the Greek Septuagint in the centuries before Christ.

Oh, but Catholics added them in the 1500’s. Because of course that makes sense (not).

 

[Andrew]

I find that very interesting.

I addressed two claims you made:

(1) Paul "was using hebrew scripture to provide examples of strong devotion and Faith." I asked for a source and you offered none. If you claim is correct concerning "hebrew scripture," then it follows you ought to be able to provide one from "hebrew scripture." That was your claim. You cannot provide one.

(2) Paul "does not use secular literature or poets like he did with the pagans." Both Titus 1:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:33 prove your claim demonstrably false.

Yet your reply is "Well if one rotten apple of an oral tradition don't spoil the bunch Paul obviously was speaking of a heroic biblical martyr who's record of martyrdom didn't survive."

Not one bit of evidence to support your claim. You said Paul "was was using hebrew scripture to provide examples of strong devotion and Faith." You said "using hebrew scripture."

Logically there are only two opinions. Either your claim is false or some part of the hebrew scripture has been lost. Which one do you prefer?

Yes, Paul references many scriptural characters for worthy examples to express the perfection of a martyrs faith throughout certain parts of the book of Hebrews when addressing the Hebrews.

If I had to pick a candidate for the split in two martyr I might call John the Baptist a martyr who's head was split from his body and who the Jews at that point would have been familiar with... hey at least I gave it a shot!

But no, a difficult verse in the Bible doesnt render the obvious any less obvious.

 

[Josiah]

I am asking you how Jewish "apocrypha" got into the Christian bible.

Explain to me how my answer would change the point that Hebrews does not contain a book reference to 2 Maccabees?


1. State - exactly - what books are and are not "Jewish Apocrypha?" Could you quote Jewish rabbi's before 100 AD (say to 1400 BC) talking about their "Apocrypha" and exactly what books are and are not included in that?

2. State for me some Official, Formal declaration by a ruling authorative body of Judaism stating what is and is not accepted precisely as "the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely-inspired Books of God." I'd like to see that official statement by that body. You might look at what they used in Jesus' day and the best example of that is the Dead Sea Scrolls that included books written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic... some books found there aren't in your Bible.... some in your OT aren't found there.... we have several copies of St. Mark Isaiah, of the Habakkuh Midrash, the Manual of Discipline, the War of the Children of Light, Book of Jubilees and several more. So, give to me the exact list of books that all Jews read, used and regarded as normative/canonical. Exactly, precisely, what was NOT "Jewish apocrypha." According to some official, formal, ruling body... that all Jews accepted/accept.

Then we can discuss your question.... Not until. You keep echoing words like "it" and "them" and "acocrypha: without stating exactly what material you mean.... and with zero evidence that everyone (or anyone) accepted or rejected "then" and "it" as The holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. You seem to confuse some claim that someone read or used or translated something (or didn't) with some official, universal, definitive proclamation.



Brother, the term "Bible" refers to a tome.... few existed in the early church, and when they did, they were simply books desired by that community. What was used by Christians differed from place to place, from time to time. Early Christians used Psalm 151. It was written in Hebrew centuries before Christ and quoted a LOT by Christians (and Jews) so why aren't you fighting for that? They also used books like the Gospel of Matthew, Paul's Epistle to the Romans, the Epistle of Barnabus, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Didache, the Epistles of Clement. Some accepted Second Peter, some didn't. Some accepted Hebrews, others rejected it. Some James or Second John or the Revelation of John while others flat out declared them false... there are 6 books in your NT that some Christians flat out rejected as false... but they're in your NT. The Fathers spoke of "Homoologolmena" and "Antilegomena." Brother, for over 1000 years, the Epistle to the Leodiceans often appeared in Bibles and was a part of Lectionaries - read in churches even in Luther's day. To this day, the Tradition of the Greek Orthodox Chruch is different from the Roman Catholic Church and from the Syrian Orthodox Church which is differant than the Anglican Church, which is different from the Presbyterian Church. Brother, you are throwing a lot of terms around as if such were precise.... you are using VERY sweeping terms with zero evidence such applies. LOTS of wild assumptions... with zero evidence.



But to the point here....

It's been argued that one of the several Maccabee books must be accepted as the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God BECAUSE it was used and read by early Christians. Well, a point evaded/ignored.... my brother.... LOTS of books were circulated throughout early Christiandom..... Some of them were SPECIFICALLY CALLED "SCRIPTURE" by several esteemed Fathers. A small sample of such are: The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas. The Didache, the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of James, the Apocalypse of Peter and several more. Letters from Clement and Ignatius and several others were WIDELY read and circulated all over Christiandom. So, the rubric "If circulated, ergo the holy, inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture)" is valid and sound, then you need to be arguing equally for a LOT of other books....


It's also been argued that one or more of the Maccabee books would not be known today if it were not the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and universally embraced as such. That's just silly. There are many books available today older than any of the Maccabee books, available and read today.


It's also been argued that one of the Maccabees books MUST be the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) and universally embraced as such because Hebrews includes a book reference to 2 Maccabees.... it was later (finally) admitted it does not (as anyone who can read knows). Then the apologetic changed to this: if two books seem to address the same historic event, then both must ergo be the holy, inerrant, canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and be in our Bible. But obviously, we'd then have MILLIONS of books in our Bible.



.

 

[Origen]

If I had to pick a candidate for the split in two martyr I might call John the Baptist a martyr who's head was split from his body and who the Jews at that point would have been familiar with... hey at least I gave it a shot!

Yes you did, but there are a number of reasons why that won't work. For one John the Baptist was "not sawed in two."

But no, a difficult verse in the Bible doesnt render the obvious any less obvious.

You are deflecting and avoiding the problems with your two claims.

Again, I addressed two points you made.

(1) Paul "was using hebrew scripture to provide examples of strong devotion and Faith." I asked for a source and you offered none. If your claim is correct concerning "hebrew scripture," then it follows you ought to be able to provide one from "hebrew scripture." That was your claim. You cannot provide one.

(2) Paul "does not use secular literature or poets like he did with the pagans." Both Titus 1:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:33 prove your claim demonstrably false.

So since you cannot provide "hebrew scripture" for Hebrews 11:37, and given your claim that Paul "was using hebrew scripture to provide examples of strong devotion and Faith." I state again, either your claim is false or some part of the Hebrew Scriptures has been lost.

So which option do you do you prefer?

 

[Andrew]

I think it’s because the Jews accepted them at first.

The Jews included them in the Greek Septuagint in the centuries before Christ.

Oh, but Catholics added them in the 1500’s. Because of course that makes sense (not).

No no, that's not what happened..

Haven't you studied greek history?
The Jews revolted against the greeks for publishing silly made up stories about them and their "wacky hebrew adventures" and secretly shelving them inside the synagogues for their own amusement, crying with laughter whenever the rabbis would read them out loud. They were so furious that after 400 years of waiting around in silence for God to tell them what they should do about it, they finally ran the greeks out by hiding rotten fish guts inside their walls, they then sold the extra books to some very well mannered cult members and declared an official Hebrew canon in 90AD, totally not even noticing that the Messiah had just come. (not)

 

[NathanH83]

Please provide evidence of this "The marginal note" with either a photo or other source material.

So that hearsay can be dismissed.
Or do you worship a KJV and marginal note.

Thankyou

Did you still want the link to that Bible took a picture of? It’s the 400-year anniversary version of the original 1611 King James. That’s where I took the picture from. Here’s the link:


Holy Bible, 1611 King James Version: 400th Anniversary Edition Holy Bible, 1611 King James Version: 400th Anniversary Edition: Zondervan: 9780310440291: Amazon.com: Books

 

[pinacled]

Ah,
Replicas are also known to be forgeries of an original.
Meaning there are alterations that distinguish the fake from the original.
That is why the US treasury takes decadent measures when printing currency.

Thankyou and Blessings for revealing your motive source.

 

[Andrew]

Ah,
Replicas are also known to be forgeries of an original.
Meaning there are alterations that distinguish the fake from the original.
That is why the US treasury takes decadent measures when printing currency.

Thankyou and Blessings for revealing your motive source.

So if I copy and fax my over my W-2 to my tax attorney's office the copy becomes a forgery?

 

[pinacled]

So if I copy and fax my over my W-2 to my tax attorney's office the copy becomes a forgery?

Yes

Technically called fraud

 

[pinacled]

So if I copy and fax my over my W-2 to my tax attorney's office the copy becomes a forgery?

I hope you've never done such a thing

 

[RichWh1]

Yes

Technically called fraud

If this is true, then the entire Bible is a forgery because the manuscripts were copied and recopied through the centuries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk