Jump to content
IGNORED

Why isn't the book of Maccabees included in the Bible?


Esther4:14

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357
2 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

True or not, neither the New International Version or the New Jerusalem Bible has "saved" anyone.

Salvation is through Jesus and Jesus alone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  867
  • Topics Per Day:  0.24
  • Content Count:  7,331
  • Content Per Day:  2.01
  • Reputation:   2,860
  • Days Won:  31
  • Joined:  04/09/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/28/1964

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The book of Maccabees was in existence when Jesus was alive, but Jesus always omits the Apocryphal writings.   Jesus refers to the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms in Luke 24:44. 

He refers to the Scriptures in Matt. 23:35:   "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar."

Abel is of course, mentioned in Genesis.   Zecharias is mentioned in Chronicles, but Chronicles, in the Hebrew arrangement of the OT, is the last book.  So Jesus accepts as Scripture, the entire OT and consciously omits books like Maccabees and the rest of the Apocrypha.

Not only that, but no NT writer ever mentions or makes any reference to the Apocrypha.   The 66 books we have are the only books of Holy, inspired Scripture.

Jude mentions the book of Enoch so what do you mean when you say that no NT writer mentions or makes any reference to the apocrypha?

Besides, how do you know which books are books of the apocrypha and it which aren't using your logic alone? There was no Bible in existence at the time. So if you are claiming that a book should not be in the Canon because it is not mentioned then should we have the Book of Haggai in the Bible, or the Book of Habbakuk? I don't recall Jesus mentioning either of these. What about the book of Zephaniah, that's not mentioned in the NT either?

You claim that Jesus always omits the apocryphal writings but when Jesus was around there were no apocryphal writings. Now I'm not saying that there are books that shouldn't be in the bible but your logic is flawed. We could have left the book of Ezekiel out of the Bible and then used your claim to justify its omission by saying "Jesus didn't mention it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
3 minutes ago, OakWood said:

Jude mentions the book of Enoch so what do you mean when you say that no NT writer mentions or makes any reference to the apocrypha?

 

Enoch is not apocryphal.

Quote

Besides, how do you know which books are books of the apocrypha and it which aren't using your logic alone? There was no Bible in existence at the time. So if you are claiming that a book should not be in the Canon because it is not mentioned then should we have the Book of Haggai in the Bible, or the Book of Habbakuk? I don't recall Jesus mentioning either of these. What about the book of Zephaniah, that's not mentioned in the NT either?

I am not operating  off of my logic alone.   The NT canon was not in existence, but the OT canon was.   Jesus referenced the OT canon as only the books we know to be in the OT canon today.  When ever Jesus made general claims about the OT, He never included the Apocryphal writings.     Jesus didn't mention every single OT book, but that is not only criteria that I am working from.   Haggai and Habakkuk and Zephaniah, possess the character of divinely inspired Scripture and none of the Apocryphal writings do.   You cannot find biblical doctrinal truth from the Apocrypha. 

Jesus, it would seem would make SOME reference to the Apocrypha were it part of the word of God.

Quote

You claim that Jesus always omits the apocryphal writings but when Jesus was around there were no apocryphal writings. Now I'm not saying that there are books that shouldn't be in the bible but your logic is flawed. We could have left the book of Ezekiel out of the Bible and then used your claim to justify its omission by saying "Jesus didn't mention it!"

Actually the apocryphal writings WERE in existence in Jesus' day.  They were written between 400BC and the 1st century AD.    You are running from the assumption that there was only one criteria that I am using.   I mentioned just one, which should be enough, but there are more, such as the numerous factual errors and unbiblical theology they contain.   Tobit teaches salvation through works.   Judith mentions Nebuchadnezzar as the King of Syria and I could go on with the known errors and bad theology contained.  But there are numerous reasons why we should reject the apocryphal writings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  3,776
  • Content Per Day:  1.29
  • Reputation:   4,746
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/31/2016
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, OakWood said:

Jude mentions the book of Enoch so what do you mean when you say that no NT writer mentions or makes any reference to the apocrypha?

Shiloh is right.  Enoch is not part of the Deuterocanonical Apocrypha that is now considered part of the "Catholic" Bible.  Enoch is "apocryphal" in nature being along with scores of other books not part of the D.A. in that they were written between 400 B.C. and the time of Christ and they are wrought with historical and Biblical error. 

Here's the offical list of the books of the Apocrypha:  1 and 2 Esdras, Additions to Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobius, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Susanna, Prayer of Azariah, Prayer of Mannaseh, Bel and the Dragon, Laodecians

Quote

Besides, how do you know which books are books of the apocrypha and it which aren't using your logic alone? There was no Bible in existence at the time. So if you are claiming that a book should not be in the Canon because it is not mentioned then should we have the Book of Haggai in the Bible, or the Book of Habbakuk? I don't recall Jesus mentioning either of these. What about the book of Zephaniah, that's not mentioned in the NT either?

The word, "apocrypha" means "hidden" in Greek, but today - in any dictionary - the word means "widely circulated, but more than likely not true at all".  All of the apocryphal books are very easily identifiable due to the time of their writing and their gross errors.

Quote

You claim that Jesus always omits the apocryphal writings but when Jesus was around there were no apocryphal writings.

Of course there were apocryphal writings at the time of Christ.  That's what makes them, in part, apocryphal.  There were written between the Old and New Testament writings.




 

Edited by Jayne
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  867
  • Topics Per Day:  0.24
  • Content Count:  7,331
  • Content Per Day:  2.01
  • Reputation:   2,860
  • Days Won:  31
  • Joined:  04/09/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/28/1964

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Enoch is not apocryphal.

I am not operating  off of my logic alone.   The NT canon was not in existence, but the OT canon was.   Jesus referenced the OT canon as only the books we know to be in the OT canon today.  When ever Jesus made general claims about the OT, He never included the Apocryphal writings.     Jesus didn't mention every single OT book, but that is not only criteria that I am working from.   Haggai and Habakkuk and Zephaniah, possess the character of divinely inspired Scripture and none of the Apocryphal writings do.   You cannot find biblical doctrinal truth from the Apocrypha. 

Jesus, it would seem would make SOME reference to the Apocrypha were it part of the word of God.

Actually the apocryphal writings WERE in existence in Jesus' day.  They were written between 400BC and the 1st century AD.    You are running from the assumption that there was only one criteria that I am using.   I mentioned just one, which should be enough, but there are more, such as the numerous factual errors and unbiblical theology they contain.   Tobit teaches salvation through works.   Judith mentions Nebuchadnezzar as the King of Syria and I could go on with the known errors and bad theology contained.  But there are numerous reasons why we should reject the apocryphal writings.

What about the book of Jasher, read by the apostles and referenced in the Book of Jeremiah. That wasn't part of the Jewish canon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
35 minutes ago, OakWood said:

What about the book of Jasher, read by the apostles and referenced in the Book of Jeremiah. That wasn't part of the Jewish canon.

Yes, but nowhere is the book of Jeremiah is Jasher treated as inspired Scripture.  Just because some extra-biblical source is cited in the Bible, it doesn't follow that it should be understood as being inspired Scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  68
  • Topic Count:  185
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  14,204
  • Content Per Day:  3.35
  • Reputation:   16,629
  • Days Won:  30
  • Joined:  08/14/2012
  • Status:  Offline

Carm has this to say on the subject of why the OT apocrypha is not included in the Bible:

Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible

by Ryan Turner

Catholics and Protestants disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the OldTestament Scriptures. The dispute between them is over seven books, part of what is known as the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther.1  However, there are a number of reasons why the Old Testament Apocrypha should not be part of the Canon or standard writings of Scripture.

Rejection by Jesus and the Apostles

1.  There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say." There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics. In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5, Lk. 24:27, Jn. 10:35) and use phrases, such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God.

2.  Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51, cf. Mt. 23:35).”

Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the Book of Genesis while Zechariah was the last martyr in the Book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus' referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Rejection by the Jewish Community

3.  The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2), and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2

4.  The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.

5.  Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.

Rejection by many in the Catholic Church

6.  The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

7.  Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

8.  The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.

False Teachings

9.  The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible).

The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7).

Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11, 12:9).

Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

Not Prophetic

10.  The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not 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 (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27, 14:41).

 

Sources

Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995, pp. 157-75.

Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999, pp. 28-36.

 

This article is also available in: Norsk, Português

1.See http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp for a list of the books that the Roman Catholic Church accepts. Also see, Michael D. Coogan, ed., The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, third edition, New Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 4, for a list of the Apocrypha. Interestingly, Catholics refer to these extra books as the Deuterocanonical books while Protestants refer to them as part of the Apocrypha.

2.Some scholars debate whether the exact Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures was discovered by the Jews until around 100 A.D. so Paul may not be referring to some authoritative list of books. However, the principle of the "oracles of God" still holds. The Jews rejected the Apocrypha as being part of the oracles of God.

3.There are various divisions of the Hebrew canon. The Protestant Old Testament Canon contains 39 books while the Hebrew canon has 22 or 24. These are the exact same books as the Protestants have, but they are just arranged differently and some of the books are combined into one. For example, Kings is one book. There is not 1st Kings and 2nd Kings. Also, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) are one book in the Hebrew Canon.

4.It is true that the Catholic Church accepted the Apocryphal books at earlier councils at Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), and Florence (A.D. 1442). However, these were not universal Church councils and the earlier councils were influenced heavily by Augustine, who was no Biblical expert, compared to the scholar Jerome, who rejected the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament Canon. Furthermore, it is doubtful that these local church council's decisions were binding on the Church at large since they were local councils. Sometimes these local councils made errors and had to be corrected by a universal church council.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  3,776
  • Content Per Day:  1.29
  • Reputation:   4,746
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/31/2016
  • Status:  Offline

The Book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel ("aren't these events recorded in the Book of Jasher?") is a completely lost book.  It does not exist today.

The "Book of Jasher" (there are apparently more than one) were all written (allegedly translated) in the middle ages to as late as 1840.  They have nothing to do with the Book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel.

The Book of Jasher is wildly supported by and popular with Mormons.

Edited by Jayne
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  867
  • Topics Per Day:  0.24
  • Content Count:  7,331
  • Content Per Day:  2.01
  • Reputation:   2,860
  • Days Won:  31
  • Joined:  04/09/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/28/1964

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes, but nowhere is the book of Jeremiah is Jasher treated as inspired Scripture.  Just because some extra-biblical source is cited in the Bible, it doesn't follow that it should be understood as being inspired Scripture.

I never said that it was. But you are excluding books on the basis that they are not mentioned in the Bible. Well, at least that's the way I read what you wrote. Maybe I misread what you were trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
2 hours ago, OakWood said:

I never said that it was. But you are excluding books on the basis that they are not mentioned in the Bible. Well, at least that's the way I read what you wrote. Maybe I misread what you were trying to say.

One reason we do not treat the Apocrypha as inspired is because it is not treated as inspired by Jesus or the apostles.  Nowhere does the NT treat the Apocrypha as part of the Word of God.  

That is ONE criteria.  That is not the only criteria.   There are other reasons why the Apocrypha should be excluded.  If simply not being cited by the NT was the only criteria, it would pose a problem.  But thankfully that isn't the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...