HTacianas said:
↑
Read I Maccabees. It tells the whole story.
Forget Maccabees. It is not part of the Holy Bible. The Catholics added it as part of the Apocrypha. That explains why the book of Maccabees has false teachings like the offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).
Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the characteristics of the Canonical books. It is not even prophetic. There is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (1 Macc 9:27; 14:41). So why are you asking us to read I Maccabees to understand the book of Daniel? Humm...
I agree..........
The Canonization of Maccabees
Sabertooth said:
I have never read the book so maybe it is painfully obvious, but the following observation raises a question for me.
In
John 10:22, we see Jesus participating in the Feast of Dedication, aka Hanukkah. Wouldn't His acknowledgement of the feast, imply a ratification of Maccabees as canon or, at least, some portion of it?
=========================================
1 Maccabees - Wikipedia
Canonicity
Pope Damasus I's
Council of Rome in 382, if the
Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical with the list given at Trent including the two books of Maccabees.
Origen of Alexandria (253),
[2] Augustine of Hippo (c. 397),
[3] Pope Innocent I (405),
[4][5] Synod of Hippo (393),
[6] the
Council of Carthage (397),
[7] the Council of Carthage (419),
[8] the
Apostolic Canons,
[9] the Council of Florence (1442)
[10] and the
Council of Trent (1546)
[11] listed the first two books of Maccabees as canonical.
Transmission, language and author
The text comes to us in three codices of the
Septuagint: the
Codex Sinaiticus,
Codex Alexandrinus and
Codex Venetus, as well as some cursives.
Though the original book was written in
Hebrew, as can be deduced by a number of Hebrew idioms in the text,[
citation needed] the original has been lost and the version which comes down to us is the Septuagint. Some authors date the original Hebrew text even closer to the events covered, while a few suggest a later date. Because of the accuracy of the historical account, if the later date is taken, the author would have to have had access to first-hand reports of the events or other primary sources.
Origen of Alexandria[12] gives testimony to the existence of an original Hebrew text.
Jerome likewise claims "the first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style" (per
Prologus Galeatus). Many scholars suggest that they may have actually had access to a
Biblical Aramaic paraphrase of the work—but one should be aware of a "creeping Aramaicism", finding evidence for a vaguely Aramaic text when there is nothing definite to point to.[
citation needed] Only the Greek text has survived, and this only through its inclusion in the Christian canon. Origen claims that the title of the original was
Sarbēth Sarbanael (variants include Σαρβηθ Σα[ρ]βαναι ελ "
Sarbēth Sa[r]banai El" and Σαρβηθ Σα[ρ]βανέελ
Sarbēth Sa[r]baneel), an enigmatic Greek transliteration from a putative Hebrew original.[
citation needed] Various reconstructions have been propose
================================
2 Maccabees - Wikipedia
Catholics and the
Eastern Orthodox regard 2 Maccabees as canonical. Jews and all Protestants other than
Anglo-Catholics do not. Based on (not necessarily reliable) copies,
[10][11] 1 and 2 Maccabees appears in manuscripts of the
Septuagint,
[12] the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which was completed by the 2nd century BC
[13] along with (in some copies)
3 and
4 Maccabees and
Psalm 151 which are considered apocryphal by the Roman Catholic church.
[14] The Codex Vaticanus lacks 1 and 2 Maccabees (but includes 1 Esdras) which Codex
Sinaiticus includes along with 4 Maccabees (but omits Baruch), which evidences a lack of uniformity in the lists of books in early manuscripts of the Septuagint.
[15] Neither 1st nor 2nd Maccabees were found among the
Dead Sea Scrolls.
[16] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the
Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical with the list given at Trent including the two books of Maccabees,
Origen of Alexandria (A.D. 253),
[17] Augustine of Hippo (c. 397 AD),
[18] Pope Innocent I (405 AD),
[19][20] Synod of Hippo (393 AD),
[21] the
Council of Carthage (397 AD),
[22] the Council of Carthage (419 AD),
[23] the
Apostolic Canons,
[24] the Council of Florence (1442 AD)
[25] and the
Council of Trent (1546 AD)
[26] listed the first two books of Maccabees as canonical.
In
Jamnia c 90, according to one theory now largely discredited[
citation needed],
rabbis endorsed a narrower canon, excluding deuterocanonical works such as 2 Maccabees. This had little immediate impact on Christians, however, since most Christians did not know Hebrew and were familiar with the Hebrew Bible through the Greek Septuagint text from
hellenistic Jews, although some researchers believe that under Christian auspices the books known to Protestants and Jews as apocryphal and to Roman Catholics as deuterocanonical were added to the Septuagint.
[27] In addition, the canonical status of deuterocanonical books was disputed among some notable scholars from early on and into the Council of Trent,
[28][29][30] which first definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon
[31] on 8 April 1546,
[32] after the death of
Martin Luther.
[33]
Although 2 Maccabees was included by Luther
[34] and other early reformers in their Bibles, they were rejected as being on the same level as canonical writings.
[35] Martin Luther said: "I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to
Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities."
[36] Other evangelical writers have been more positive towards the book: twentieth century author
James B. Jordan, for example, argues that while
1 Maccabees "was written to try and show the
Maccabean usurpers as true heirs of David and as true
High Priests" and is a "wicked book," a "far more accurate picture of the situation is given in 2 Maccabees."
[37]
==========================================
==========================================
Where is the abomination of desolation of Daniel, Matt and Mark shown in Revelation
Hebrew Interlinear of Daniel 11:31 Showing the use of the Definite Article -
THE Abomination of Desolation
Hebrew Interlinear of Daniel 12:11 Showing the Absence of the Definite Article -
AN Abomination of Desolation
Daniel 10:14 "Now I have come to make you understand what
will happen to your people in the last of the days, that future vision for the days.
Daniel 11:31
and arms/02220 z@rowa` from him, they shall stand up. And they profane//violate/02490 chalal the Sanctuary/04720 miqdash, the-Refuge/ma`owz. And they take-away/05493 cuwr the-Continually/08548 tamiyd, and they give/05414 nathan
The-Abomination/08251 shiqquwts, one-making-desolate/08074 shamem.
Daniel 12:11
And-from-time he-is-taken-away/05493 cuwr the-continually/08548 tamiyd, and-to-give-of/05414 nathan
an-abomination/08251 shiqquwts, one-desolating/08074 shamem, days, thousand, twohundreds, and ninety
Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke's Temple/Jerusalem Discourses harmonized
Matthew 24:15
Whenever then ye may be seeing
the abomination<946> of the desolation<2050>, the being declared<4483> thru Daniel the prophet, having-stood<2476> in a place<5117>, holy<40> (the one-reading<ἀναγινώσκων <314> let him be understanding<νοείτω 3539>)...
16 then those in the Judea let them be fleeing!<5343> into the mountains<3735>
Mark 13:14
`Whenever yet ye may be seeing
the abomination<946> of the desolation<2050>, the being declared thru Daniel the prophet, having-stood where not it is binding<1163>, (the one-reading< ἀναγινώσκων <314> let him be minding/understanding), then those in the Judea, let them be fleeing! into the mountains
Luke 21:20
Whenever yet
may be seeing the Jerusalem surrounded<2124> by war-troops<4760>, then be knowing that come nigh<1448> the desolating<2050> of Her