I'd like to ask thoughts on the book of I Maccabees. Please only weigh your opinion if you've read the book.
For those who have read it...
What are your thoughts on the literary and historical qualities of the book? Is there any reason why this book should not be considered divinely inspired? (I ask that you give a reason other than "It's not in the Bible", because such a response ultimately relies upon circular logic.)
From what I have read... it's historical quality is on par with that of the book of Kingdoms (I & II Samuel, and I & II King) and the book of Chronicles... namely, nothing can be objected to in particular. And, additionally, it fills us in on the historical events which followed the return of the Jews from their Babylonian exile. (The common idea of "the 400 years of silence" of God between the return from exile and the coming of Jesus, so that "obviously" I Maccabees is not inspired from God is, again, circular logic.) On a literary level, I would again say the same; it remains relatively unbiased (aside from its obvious favor for the followers of the true God).
If I remember correctly, it doesn't purport to make any prophecies of its own. Rather, the language it uses implies (but never says outright) that the events it records are in fulfillment of the visions of Daniel (something I agree with regardless of its inspired status).
On a historical level, the book was relatively popular even before the Jews or Christians laid down their official canons of Scripture, and I would argue that Jesus himself even paraphrases the book at one point in his prophetic oracles ("coincidentally" in the very same prophecy in which he refers to the book of Daniel). It has been hypothesized that the only reason the book was not included in a finalized canon by the Jews was because they only came up with their official and final listing after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and that including a book such as I Maccabees that idealized a holy revolt against a pagan kingdom would have put them in just as much hot water as their recently failed revolt against Rome.
Lastly, in terms of religious ceremony, it is this book which (as the book of Esther before it) prescribes a new festival, called "Lights" or "Dedication" (Chanukah), which Jesus is recorded as taking part in. It would seem odd, to say the least, that Jesus, a purist who rejected the piles of legalism that had built up over the previous centuries, would celebrate a religious festival that finds its origins in a book not considered inspired.
To summarize my feelings: On both a literary and historical level, I read I Maccabees on par with Kingdoms and Chronicles. The book was read by both Jews and Christians early on. It was paraphrased by Jesus, who also celebrated the festival prescribed by the book. Aside from using the circular logic of "It's not in the Bible so it's not canonical; it's not canonical so it's not in the Bible", I can't think of any reasons why this book couldn't be considered divinely inspired, any more than a book like Chronicles or Esther, which it is very similar to as regards to style.
Grace and peace.
For those who have read it...
What are your thoughts on the literary and historical qualities of the book? Is there any reason why this book should not be considered divinely inspired? (I ask that you give a reason other than "It's not in the Bible", because such a response ultimately relies upon circular logic.)
From what I have read... it's historical quality is on par with that of the book of Kingdoms (I & II Samuel, and I & II King) and the book of Chronicles... namely, nothing can be objected to in particular. And, additionally, it fills us in on the historical events which followed the return of the Jews from their Babylonian exile. (The common idea of "the 400 years of silence" of God between the return from exile and the coming of Jesus, so that "obviously" I Maccabees is not inspired from God is, again, circular logic.) On a literary level, I would again say the same; it remains relatively unbiased (aside from its obvious favor for the followers of the true God).
If I remember correctly, it doesn't purport to make any prophecies of its own. Rather, the language it uses implies (but never says outright) that the events it records are in fulfillment of the visions of Daniel (something I agree with regardless of its inspired status).
On a historical level, the book was relatively popular even before the Jews or Christians laid down their official canons of Scripture, and I would argue that Jesus himself even paraphrases the book at one point in his prophetic oracles ("coincidentally" in the very same prophecy in which he refers to the book of Daniel). It has been hypothesized that the only reason the book was not included in a finalized canon by the Jews was because they only came up with their official and final listing after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and that including a book such as I Maccabees that idealized a holy revolt against a pagan kingdom would have put them in just as much hot water as their recently failed revolt against Rome.
Lastly, in terms of religious ceremony, it is this book which (as the book of Esther before it) prescribes a new festival, called "Lights" or "Dedication" (Chanukah), which Jesus is recorded as taking part in. It would seem odd, to say the least, that Jesus, a purist who rejected the piles of legalism that had built up over the previous centuries, would celebrate a religious festival that finds its origins in a book not considered inspired.
To summarize my feelings: On both a literary and historical level, I read I Maccabees on par with Kingdoms and Chronicles. The book was read by both Jews and Christians early on. It was paraphrased by Jesus, who also celebrated the festival prescribed by the book. Aside from using the circular logic of "It's not in the Bible so it's not canonical; it's not canonical so it's not in the Bible", I can't think of any reasons why this book couldn't be considered divinely inspired, any more than a book like Chronicles or Esther, which it is very similar to as regards to style.
Grace and peace.
