The Canonization of Maccabees

[Sabertooth]

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?

 

[FreezBee]

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?

Well, I believe that the RCC acknowledges 1+2 Maccabees, but since Christians do not keep the Hanukkah, I suppose that there is no particular reason for adding these to canons that don't have them. They are interesting from a purely historical point of view though

- FreezBee

 

[AngCath]

we don't celebrate purim either so why bother reading Esther? i'm speaking tongue-in-cheek intentionally. I and II Macc. was part of the Canon until the Reformers took them out.

 

[Sabertooth]

It seems inconsistent that Jesus would recognize an uninspired "holiday," if it WAS uninspired.

Has Maccabees been subjected to the scrutiny Dr. Ivan Panin's numeric studies?

 

[AngCath]

It seems inconsistent that Jesus would recognize an uninspired "holiday," if it WAS uninspired.

Has Maccabees been subjected to the scrutiny Dr. Ivan Panin's numeric studies?

who is Dr. Ivan?

 

[Sabertooth]

who is Dr. Ivan?

Google [Panin mathematician Bible].

I found out later that his work DID exclude Maccabees.

 

[FreezBee]

Google [Panin mathematician Bible].

I found out later that his work DID exclude Maccabees.

So, that settles the matter, I'd guess

As for Esther - I don't mind, if we excluded that from the canon either. Though it has some redeeming qualities, the similarities and differences between that book and the Book of Daniel.


- FreezBee

 

[HypnoToad]

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?

Just because Maccabees mentions the origins for a holiday doesn't make it inspired Scripture.

 

[BibleWheel]

we don't celebrate purim either so why bother reading Esther? i'm speaking tongue-in-cheek intentionally. I and II Macc. was part of the Canon until the Reformers took them out.

Hi AngCath,

As I'm sure you know, the Prots would see things in exactly the opposite light - namely that the deuteros were contested throughout the history of the church and only officially established as canonical at Trent (1545 AD) in response to the Reformation.

I imagine this has been discussed here quite a bit. I'm new here, so could you point me to a thread that discusses this?

Thanks!

Richard

 

[Philip]

As I'm sure you know, the Prots would see things in exactly the opposite light - namely that the deuteros were contested throughout the history of the church and only officially established as canonical at Trent (1545 AD) in response to the Reformation.

What a wonderful way to dismiss the Eastern half of Christianity.

 

[AngCath]

Hi AngCath,

As I'm sure you know, the Prots would see things in exactly the opposite light - namely that the deuteros were contested throughout the history of the church and only officially established as canonical at Trent (1545 AD) in response to the Reformation.

I imagine this has been discussed here quite a bit. I'm new here, so could you point me to a thread that discusses this?

Thanks!

Richard

as Philip already pointed out. your statement excludes the Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) who also hold the Deuterocanonical books to be part of Scripture.

 

[BibleWheel]

as Philip already pointed out. your statement excludes the Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) who also hold the Deuterocanonical books to be part of Scripture.

Correct. But of course, you also know that they hold to a different (larger) set of deuteros than the Catholics.

There is only one set of books that all Christians everywhere agree are inspired of God - and that set is the 66 Books of the Protestant Canon. Some say the set is incomplete, but all agree that the 66 Books are canonical. It is the common core of all Christian Bibles, and so all Christians are united on the canonical status of those books.

Also, we should remember that the Orthodox have disputed some of the books during the course of their history.

Richard

 

[AngCath]

Is your position that since we all agree on the 66 lets just stick to them?

 

[BibleWheel]

What a wonderful way to dismiss the Eastern half of Christianity.

Hi Philip,

I certainly did not mean to be dismissive! Please excuse my faulty post. I was only dealing with the western church in that short missive.

As for the status of the canon amongst Othodox Christians, it is not uniform. If I recall correctly, the Russian orthodox bible has 66 books. And different groups that call themselves orthodox disagree on the exact content of the deuteros. I don't have all the info on the top of my head, so please correct me if I am wrong.

Richard

 

[AngCath]

The primary differance among the East is that they accept the Deuterocanon and some Churches (ie Ethiopian Tawehado) accepts some more in addition such as I Enoch and Jubilees. You may be thinking of the Peshitta of the Syriac Orthodox Church which excludes some of the Epistles.

 

[BibleWheel]

Is your position that since we all agree on the 66 lets just stick to them?

No - I would never say anything like that on any biblical topic. I like to give reasons for what I believe.

As for the canon, I think there is very strong evidence for the 66 book canon as designed by God. Consider for example the perfect symmetry of the Old Testament. Many scholars have commented on it.

The first 17 books of history divide into two sections:

5 Books (Torah)
12 Books (History in the Promised Land)

Exactly the same numerical pattern is seen in the 17 books of Prophecy:

5 Books (Major Prophets)
12 Books (Minor Prophets)

Furthermore, the two groups of 12 divide in exactly the same way in terms of the Babylonian Exile:

12 History = 9 pre-exilic + 3 post exilic
12 Min Prophets = 9 pre-exilic + 3 post exilic.

Then there are 5 Books of Wisdom and poetry between the 17 books of history and the 17 books of prophecy.

Thus we have this perfect symmetry of the OT:

17 Books of History
Divided into 5 + 12, with the latter divided into 9 + 3

5 Books of Wisdom and Poetry

17 Books of Prophecy
Divided into 5 + 12, with the latter divided into 9 + 3

The really impressive thing about this is that this pattern only appears when we adhere to the CONTENT of the Jewish canon and ORDER of the Vulgate, which is how the pattern appeared historically. This means the pattern was not designed by the Catholics or Orthodox, since they had the deuteros which ruined it, and it was not designed by the reformers since they applied a single principle, holding only to the Jewish canon.

This seems to be a pretty good argument that God did it.

Richard

 

[AngCath]

This seems to be a pretty good argument that God did it.

interesting math is not an argument for God's action... sounds like you'd make a good student of Kabbalah

 

[Philip]

As for the status of the canon amongst Othodox Christians, it is not uniform. If I recall correctly, the Russian orthodox bible has 66 books. And different groups that call themselves orthodox disagree on the exact content of the deuteros. I don't have all the info on the top of my head, so please correct me if I am wrong.

While the inspiration of the some books is disputed among Orthodox groups, I know of no canonical Eastern Orthodox (or Oriental Orthodox) that accepts a canon smaller than that of the Roman Church. The closest there is to an 'official' confirmation of the contents of Scripture is from the Synod of Jerusalem. It identified all the books of the Roman canon in addition to Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, Odes of Solomon, and Letter of Jeremiah.

In general, Orthodoxy does not spend much time discussing whether or not certain books are part of Scripture -- such debates are unnecessary under our understanding of the nature of the Church. We do spend some time debating which books should be used as part of corporate worship.

 

[Philip]

You may be thinking of the Peshitta of the Syriac Orthodox Church which excludes some of the Epistles.

I believe it also excludes the Apocolypse.

 

[BibleWheel]

interesting math is not an argument for God's action...

Its not the math per se - its the perfect symmetry of the Protestant Canon. It indicates design, and history proves that humans did not make this design. So there you go, God did it.

Richard