Does anyone know why the Maccabees were not included in the bible we currently have?
Discussion
51 comments
-
Many of its narratives are at variance with historical and geographical accuracy.
-
A power move by Luther when he pulled away from the Catholic Church.
-
They are not considered inspires and doesn’t add any spiritual significance to the bible.It is more of a historical book.
-
They were written far beyond from the time of Jesus.. Compare to the books in the NT
-
Gloria Gloria
all APOCRYPHAL books are STOICS and GNOSTIC authors and contradicts the Story == Theology and Doctrine of GOD in the 66 books
that is why it was not included in the 66 Books of the Bible
-
First Maccabees notes that there were no prophets in Israel at that time (1 Maccabees 4:46; 9:27; 14:41). Since the New Testament frequently refers to the Scriptures as “the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; 24:44; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Romans 3:21), how could a writing that specifically states that there were no prophets at the time when it was written be called Scripture?
-
It is only in the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. The Septuagint.
-
Coz of canonicity
-
The Jews didn’t consider it scripture although they did consider it historical.
Jesus also did not use it as Scripture, and He used/referenced the rest of the Old Testament in someway (perhaps except for Esther).
-
Maccandbees was replaced by the much tastier maccandcheese.
-
The Ethiopian Christian bible has 81 books including Maccabees.
-
It was during antiochus the 4 and I assume Daniel was more popular at the time of canonization
-
Micah, the last Old Testament book in the Protestant Bible, predicts 400 years of silence from God. Thus, we do not accept any books written during those 400 years as the Word of God, including Macabees.
-
Read 2 Maccabees 14:41-46. That will provide obvious answer
-
Martin Luther
-
Because the Holy Spirit said so. Look at its content.
-
Because they were written after the time of the prophets and even state that themselves. They are not scripture.
-
Didn’t passed the canon of the scripture(not inspired).
-
The Maccabees book was written in Hebrew by Jewish author for Jews. It not one of the inspired 66 books of the Bible.
-
Because their doctrine was MacMaybees. Scripture did not confirm scripture in their case.
-
They are, though ?
-
not scripture or inspired. it also provide influence of black magic and wrong historical information
-
Maccabees were from the corrupted alexandrian texts. The catholic church corrupted them. The vaticanus and sinaiticus text originated from the catholic church, and is believed they were ordered from Egypt. The septuagint and textus receptus aparently did not include the maccabees, and were not altered in any way, but were found and accepted as is.
-
This is a video with Alan Parr making his case that the Deuterocanonical books were not scripture with an equally well articulated opposing view. https://youtu.be/tRmlW954PwI
-
Because they are not inspired by God like the other books are, however that are good for Jewish history for the period between the two testaments, but one should not consider them sacred
-
The canon is based on the inspirational texts only. There are lots of other useful writings but they aren’t inspired
-
Jesus was mad at them
-
Maccabees is still in the Catholic bible. The Reformers did not include it in their bible because of references to praying to and for the dead.
-
What were the standards for what is scriptural or not?
-
Good question, beware of blank statements and mere opinions. Get cold hard facts. It allows you to then search and when you get the truth, confirm it. If I could spend my life just studying the Bible and things surrounding it to grab the most accurate truth I would be in earthly bliss.
-
Out of the loop, what does “inspired text” mean?
-
Exposes the third beast
-
The Roman Catholics would argue about that wouldn’t they? They’re deuterocanonical.
-
Because they do not pass the test for canonization
-
There were three criteria for determining canonicity.
The early Church Fathers looked at these three criteria: The writer was an Apostle or close associate of an Apostle, The writing was used by many different church communities in their prayer and worship, and the content reflected and supported the Church’s beliefs about Jesus’ identity and worship. -
I read on that a few years ago. They are historical books but did not meet the criteria of the New Testament books. I forget the requirements but easy to find. Are you catholic?
-
A part of the reason is that the two Maccabean accounts were never included in what was considered inspired or canon by the Jewish people. Was it good to read to understand the history of the Maccabean revolt? Yes, but it was no more inspired than a history book. The other part is that it carries with it questionable doctrine that Protestant churches reject. Combine the two and it never meet the standard of canonicity
-
How do you know if it is inspired? It agrees with everything else already agreed upon! What a foolproof methodology!
-
Because it’s not the word of God. The word is based on the Apostles, and the last one is Paul. The only way to be an apostle is to have come in contact with Christ.
-
Athanasius on the Canon
http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html -
The short answer which is also the correct answer is the Jews did not hold them as Canon
-
The Book of Maccabees in is not included in the Protestant Bible canon. I’m not a Protestant.
The very, very short answer is that the Protestant Reformation was deeply concerned with the original, unfiltered meaning of the Biblical texts. While sola fideles, faith alone (rather than works) leading to salvation, is perhaps the famous of the Reformation’s slogans, sola scriptura, Biblical text alone, was another. They wanted to recreate, really to rediscover, the original Biblical commandments, unfettered by Church doctrine.The Maccabees were included in several lists of scripture canon by the early Church fathers, as mentioned, for instance, in:
Council of Carthage (397 AD)
De Doctrina Christiana 2:8:13, by Augustine of Hippo (397 AD)
Letters 7, by Pope Innocent I (408 AD):
A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/augustine/ddc2.htmlEssentially, “deuterocanonical books” were books in the pre-Christian Septuagint translation but not in the Masoretic Text used by Jewish communities in Luther’s time (and today). This discrepancy was known in the Middle Ages but, as far as I know, Luther was the first to move the Apocrypha to its own section, though he didn’t delete it entirely. It was only much later that Bibles were printed without Apocrypha, at least in English (I’m less sure of other languages). The lack of clear Hebrew original made the texts seem of dubious authorship (I believe, thought I’d have to look up further, that Medieval Hebrew versions of some of these texts today are known from places like the Cairo Geniza—version of Ben Sira or the Wisdom of Sirach, for examples, were definitely found there indicating pious Jewish use for the text even as it wasn’t being included in the formal canon).
-
They did not considered as canonical booked..have not passed the measurements..
-
God will handle it and will question us regarding the matter.
-
People keep pointing fingers at the church in this matter, but it precedes that as the Jewish rabbis and scholars themselves did not consider the Apocryphal books as inspired of God. The early church followed their lead, and so the church also rejected them.
Interesting is that the Roman Catholic church only included them in their bible during the time of Luther when he challenged some of the RC beliefs as he couldn’t find them in the Bible – they were, however, in the Apocrypha, and so the RCC only then classifed them as inspired in order to defend her position. -
Because it is not in the Jewish Masoretic Text which was THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES Protestants chose to have as their Old Tesatment. Maccabees IS in the Catholic Bible because it IS in the Greek Septuagint Old Tesatment which although in Greek is OLDER then all the known Hebrew Old Tesatment scriptures known today. The Greek Septuagint was translated in 1000 BC to make the Scriptures more accessible to more people and housed in the Egypitan Museum!
-
Here are some additional factors to take into account:
In Matthew 23:55 and Luke 11:51, Jesus refers to “the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah”. This follows the Hebrew Bible’s structure, affirming that the first book was Genesis, and the last book was II Chronicles. The Apocrypha was written after the this, confirming that according to Jewish scholarly tradition, the Hebrew Canon was closed by the time of Malachi in 425 BC.
In Luke 24:44 Jesus referred to the 3-part division of Hebrew scripture, referring only to the law, the prophets and the writings. Again, this follows the structure of the Hebrew canon, and again excludes the Apocrypha.
None of the New Testament writers quote from the Apocrypha.
The Babylonian Talmud only recognises the 39 books we have in our current Old Testament, and excludes all the books found in the Apocrypha.
The Jewish historian, Josephus (37-100 A.D), also affirmed this. In his Contra Apion 1:7-8, Josephus stated that the number of books in the Hebrew canon was 22, which, when broken up as some books are combined in the Hebrew Bible that are separate books in our Bibles, again matches the 39 books of the Old Testament.
And just a correction regarding the Septuagint – it was only written around 250BC. This, however, was prior to the time of the Maccabees who were around 165BC, therefore the Apocryphal books would not have been included in the original Septuagint.
So although they may have been included in later versions of the Septuagint, it does not mean that they were recognised as authoritative texts. Despite the decisions of the church, be it Protestant or catholic, the evidence shows that Jesus, His Apostles and the Rabbis and scholars of the time did not recognise them. And for me, that is evidence enough.
-
The book was & was included in the Septuagint that was used in the time of Christ. The book is in the Catholic Bible, so if it isn’t in yours – it sounds like you may have gotten a butchered copy of the Bible.
Take it back & tell them that your Bible is missing 7 books like the Bible used by the Church Fathers! -
[…] Does anyone know why the Maccabees were not included in… […]
Comments