bible Question-400 Years of Silence and Maccabees

[Jeanne in MN]

If supposedly there were 400 years of silence between the Old and New Testament, what about the book of Maccabees which takes place about 167-143 BC? That's in the Bible. Am I missing something?

 

 

OOOPS! Forgot to capitalize Bible! Sorry!

[Garga]

I don't know why or the history of it, but Maccabees isn't in most bibles. I'm pretty sure it's only in Catholic bibles.

 

I don't know the exactly reason why, but a lot of people (obviously, since it isn't in most bibles) don't feel it met whatever guidelines were in place when they were compiling the different books of the bible.

 

Maybe it has something to do with the dead sea scrolls, or something. I dunno. I just know it's not in any of the 15 bibles that I own, except the Catholic one.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't know why or the history of it, but Maccabees isn't in most bibles. I'm pretty sure it's only in Catholic bibles.

 

I don't know the exactly reason why, but a lot of people (obviously, since it isn't in most bibles) don't feel it met whatever guidelines were in place when they were compiling the different books of the bible.

 

Maybe it has something to do with the dead sea scrolls, or something. I dunno. I just know it's not in any of the 15 bibles that I own, except the Catholic one.

 

I agree. It's not in any of the Bibles I own, but I have it in a "lost books of The Bible" book.

[Kirch]

It's not in Protestant Bibles; I believe it's in Catholic Bibles as a part of the Apocrypha. Protestants do not believe the apocrypha books to be God-inspired scripture (not sure if the Catholics do or not). It's 400 years of silence because God didn't communicate to Israel through a prophet or leader. I'm not sure if the Catholic view is that the book is canonical (the inspired Word of God) or if it's included because it gives the history of the intertestamental period.

[Renee in NC]

Maccabees and other Deuterocanonical boooks are included in Bibles used by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Amish sects. They were included in the orginal King James version, the Geneva bible, and in many other Protestant bibles until the early 1600s. They are included in the Septuagint and most in the Latin Vulgate (4th century.)

[milovany]

I don't know the exactly reason why, but a lot of people (obviously, since it isn't in most bibles) don't feel it met whatever guidelines were in place when they were compiling the different books of the bible.

 

 

Actually the deuterocanonical books WERE in the original canon of Scripture from what I understand. It wasn't until after the Protestant reformation (and some say the 1800s, during the missionary movement) that they came out. So they were a part of Scripture for at least 1500+ years. Here's a chart showing which books are in which Bible.

[Jeanne in MN]

From what I've been researching, the apocrypha refers to the books of the Bible that the Protestants find useful, but not divinely inspired. (From Wiki)

 

The original Bible was unchanged until the Protestant Reformation when the books of the current Catholic Bible were taken out to create the current Protestant Bible.

 

Soooooo, would it make sense to believe that the Catholics find those "missing" books, including Maccabees, to be divinely inspired? And would it make sense to believe that Catholics would not agree with a 400 year silence?

 

Just trying to clarify. Thanks for everyone's help so far!!

[Greta]

From what I've been researching, the apocrypha refers to the books of the Bible that the Protestants find useful, but not divinely inspired. (From Wiki)

 

The original Bible was unchanged until the Protestant Reformation when the books of the current Catholic Bible were taken out to create the current Protestant Bible.

 

Soooooo, would it make sense to believe that the Catholics find those "missing" books, including Maccabees, to be divinely inspired? And would it make sense to believe that Catholics would not agree with a 400 year silence?

 

Just trying to clarify. Thanks for everyone's help so far!!

 

I can't speak for the Catholic Church, but as an Orthodox Christian I have been taught that the Church views those books the same way that it does the rest of the Bible, most definitely divinely inspired. They have always been part of the Orthodox canon of scripture, and they always will be. By our very nature as Orthodox Christians, we don't like to change things. :D

[Scuff]

Interesting. Does anyone k ow the history of why they were removed?

[danivdp]

Interesting. Does anyone k ow the history of why they were removed?

 

Luther didn't like what they said :lol: I think it was the idea of praying for the dead...he wasn't a fan of purgatory.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Interesting. Does anyone k ow the history of why they were removed?

 

This was covered in my Bible study class on the origins of the Bible. I am sure I have some of the facts wrong or have oversimplified things, but this is the gist of what I remember.

 

A couple centuries after the Christian church has been established, the Hebrew canon was defined. A decision was made to only include books that had been "composed in Hebrew." Many of the deuterocanonical texts that had been used by Christians as Scripture were excluded because the only surviving copies were in Greek (used by Greek speaking Jews.) The terrible oppression under the Seleucids (Greeks) left an impression on the Jews - part of what Hanukkah is about (and can be found in Maccabees.)

 

However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shows that many of the deuterocanonical texts were indeed originally composed in Hebrew and used by the Essenes.

 

In some of my studies of the gospel, there were footnotes that referred back to Maccabees, which seems to show that Jesus would have been familiar with these texts.

[JVA]

This might be helpful to you: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm#index

 

The 400 years of silence was broken when God spoke to Zacharias (father of John the Baptist) through the angel, Gabriel. Luke 1: 5-25.

[Jeanne in MN]

Interesting. Does anyone k ow the history of why they were removed?

 

This is one piece I found while researching:

 

"The main reason for these books removal is due to their rejection by Martin Luther, since he disagreed with the theology contained in them. (Luther also wanted to reject other books, such as James and Esther, since he did not agree with the theology contained in those books either.)

 

Luther's main "proof" that they should be removed is that they were rejected by the Jewish councils (not Christian council) in 70 A.D. The 2 reasons they were rejected by the Jewish Council was that 1) they were being so widely used by the Christians in the spreading of this new 'sect' called Christianity and 2) the only known copies at that time were in Greek, not Hebrew. The Jews argued that since there were no known copies in Hebrew, then they must be forgeries. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran proved Luther (and the Jewish Council) wrong, since they contain copies of these books in Hebrew dating back as far as 300 B.C."

[KatieH]

 

"The main reason for these books removal is due to their rejection by Martin Luther, since he disagreed with the theology contained in them. (Luther also wanted to reject other books, such as James and Esther, since he did not agree with the theology contained in those books either.)

 

Luther's main "proof" that they should be removed is that they were rejected by the Jewish councils (not Christian council) in 70 A.D. The 2 reasons they were rejected by the Jewish Council was that 1) they were being so widely used by the Christians in the spreading of this new 'sect' called Christianity and 2) the only known copies at that time were in Greek, not Hebrew. The Jews argued that since there were no known copies in Hebrew, then they must be forgeries. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran proved Luther (and the Jewish Council) wrong, since they contain copies of these books in Hebrew dating back as far as 300 B.C."

 

:iagree:

 

 

As a Roman Catholic, Maccabees is as much a part of the Bible, and just as Divinely inspired, as any other book.

[Violet Crown]

Pedantic note:

 

There are actually four books of Maccabees. The first two are part of the Deuterocanon in the Catholic Bible. I am told (Orthodox posters can chime in) that 3 Maccabees is part of the Orthodox Deuterocanon as well as 1 and 2, and that the Georgian Orthodox Church includes all four books of Maccabees.

 

 

Catholics and Orthodox use the term Apocrypha to refer to non-canonical books, and Deuterocanon to refer to divinely inspired books not included in the Hebrew Scripture. Not all books listed as "apocrypha" in Protestant sources are considered canonical by Orthodox/Catholics.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Sharon in Austin

[mcconnellboys]

There may be 400 years of silence in the Protestant Bible, but that does not mean it's existent in the many texts that did not end up making the final cut of that version of the Bible or even in the texts used by Catholics or other groups....

[lisamarie]

I just read this the other day and I don't remember where, but it said that the Apocrypha books are not ever referenced by Jesus or referenced anywhere in the New Testament. That all the other OT books included prophesy or scriptures referenced in the NT.

 

I was actually wondering the exact same thing this week which is why I was reading about it.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I just read this the other day and I don't remember where, but it said that the Apocrypha books are not ever referenced by Jesus or referenced anywhere in the New Testament. That all the other OT books included prophesy or scriptures referenced in the NT.

 

 

 

This isn't true. Many of the deuterocanonical books are referenced in the New Testament. Here is a link outlining quite a few references.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

And just in time, the Maccabeats are going viral

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/showbiz/2010/12/02/maccabeats.candlelight.video.maccabeats.html

 

(there's an ad at the beginning.... )

 

"I flipped my latkes in the air sometimes,

singing ayo, Spin the dreidel"....

Edited December 3, 2010 by CleoQc

[mcconnellboys]

LOVE it! Thanks!

[milovany]

I just read this the other day and I don't remember where, but it said that the Apocrypha books are not ever referenced by Jesus or referenced anywhere in the New Testament. That all the other OT books included prophesy or scriptures referenced in the NT.

 

I was actually wondering the exact same thing this week which is why I was reading about it.

 

There was a gal on a blog that I used to chat with who would say that since Jesus never quoted from those books that that's what made them more suspect I guess you could say (or a reason why they weren't in the Protestant Bibles). Do you think that's what you read? I think this might be true, the direct quote part, but there are numerous books in the OT that Jesus never quoted from and the Protestants didn't remove those from their canon.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

The Protestant Bible has 66 books, the Orthodox Bible has 77 books (I always remind my Protestant friends about this, in jest of course :001_smile:). In reality the Orthodox have never closed the canon. We may define it if there is a controversy and it needs to be defined but for the last almost 2000 years it has not been a problem in the Orthodox Church. All we say is that only books that are canonical can be read in the liturgy. If a book is used in the liturgy it is part of the canon.

 

Martin Luther used the Masoretic text (the oldest known copy is from around 900 AD). He only included a book if he could find it in Hebrew. We now know because of the Dead Sea Scrolls that books he left out had also been written in Hebrew. In Jesus' time the Greek Septuagint was used and quoted from.

 

The Protestant Bible (without the Maccabees) is the most common world wide because the Protestants used the printing press earlier and because Protestants are more active than any other group in translating the text into the common language of the people.

[angela in ohio]

The Protestant Bible has 66 books, the Orthodox Bible has 77 books (I always remind my Protestant friends about this, in jest of course :001_smile:)

 

My Catholic friend always refers to my "Abridged Bible." ;) :D

 

FWIW, I find the these books important reading, even as a Protestant. :001_smile:

[TheCoffeeChick]

I'd be interested in knowing WHO removed the books also. Luther did not -- they are in his German translations. He did preface them with a statement that said they were useful books, but not canon. He may not have "liked" them as scripture, but he did NOT exclude them from the Bible.

[OregonNative]

This thread is fascinating as I know nothing about the history. I did not know their were books missing from the Bible! This bothers me. From what I'm understanding the Protestant Bible is not complete as it is missing books that Luther thought were written in Greek, but were actually written in Hebrew?

 

Tell me, how significant are these missing books to the Bible? The last thing I want to read is an incomplete Bible!

[angela in ohio]

This thread is fascinating as I know nothing about the history. I did not know their were books missing from the Bible! This bothers me. From what I'm understanding the Protestant Bible is not complete as it is missing books that Luther thought were written in Greek, but were actually written in Hebrew?

 

Tell me, how significant are these missing books to the Bible? The last thing I want to read is an incomplete Bible!

 

Please don't take your information about the Bible from this thread or any other conversation. Read about it yourself, from a reputable source. Also read the books yourself; they are great works.

 

Martin Luther did not rip out parts of the Catholic Bible, leaving it incomplete for generations to come. :001_smile: Some people give him way too much credit. :lol:

[OregonNative]

Please don't take your information about the Bible from this thread or any other conversation. Read about it yourself, from a reputable source. Also read the books yourself; they are great works.

 

Martin Luther did not rip out parts of the Catholic Bible, leaving it incomplete for generations to come. :001_smile: Some people give him way too much credit. :lol:

 

What would be a reputable source?

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Luther did not

 

You may be right I originally thought his later additions left the "apocrypha" out but maybe not. One source said it was left out of the table of contents but was still printed. Later versions (after Luther's Death) of the Bible took his view (the apocrypha are books which are not regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable to read) as a reason to leave them out. Maybe printers just wanted to save money or time.

[Violet Crown]

Sometimes I wonder if the canon dispute between Catholics and Protestants isn't just a tempest in a teapot. Catholics and Orthodox have different canons for the Old Testament, and as far as I know it isn't an issue in Catholic-Orthodox discussions.

 

Is there anything at all wrong with just observing that the Protestant canon recognizes books X, and the Catholic canon recognizes books Y, and various Orthodox churches recognize books Z (with local variations)?

[Carol in Cal.]

Sometimes I wonder if the canon dispute between Catholics and Protestants isn't just a tempest in a teapot. Catholics and Orthodox have different canons for the Old Testament, and as far as I know it isn't an issue in Catholic-Orthodox discussions.

 

Is there anything at all wrong with just observing that the Protestant canon recognizes books X, and the Catholic canon recognizes books Y, and various Orthodox churches recognize books Z (with local variations)?

 

My view on this is that from a historical perspective, the church catholic incorporated a whole bunch of different positions, with some very crucial and others more amorphous and varied. Luther had strong opinions on some but not others of the ones that were amorphous. The Council of Trent solidified some positions that the RC church had previously considered pretty much roomy enough for differences of interpretation. They both kind of solidified at variance with each other.

 

But there is so much encrusted addition to the original Faith in the RC teachings that it's impossible to imagine conservative Lutherans and conservative RC's ever agreeing. In addition to those issues (Purgatory, praying to saints, the primacy of a pope, etc.), the key issue of justification by faith is really not resolvable. I have read the joint declaration (which did not involve conservative Lutherans), and having done so it has been really interesting to hear what various people think it says. I attended an RC high school open house where the RC religion teacher told me that it meant that the Lutherans were right all along. I have talked with Lutheran pastors who are certain that it means that the liberal Lutherans caved to the RC's. When I read it it sounded like an agreement to disagree. Something that ambiguous can't really be considered to solve or resolve anything.

 

Since becoming familiar with the Orthodox church I have developed the opinion that if Luther had known Orthodox theology well he might have landed there. He (and I) didn't agree with it completely, but it's a lot more historical than most, and without a lot of the accretions of others. The importance of maintaining a united Church is high, and our inability to do that somewhat of a blot on the Christian Faith.

 

BTW, Luther did not throw out any books of the Bible because he disagreed with them. He was extremely well educated shortly after the Renaissance had increased focus on original documents and original language texts, and updated some theological understanding that had been a bit distorted by the translation of the Bible into Latin. Additionally, the Apocrypha had always been viewed as a bit 'lesser' in the RC church, and he just solidified that position a bit more, which in turn prompted a solidification in the other direction by the Council of Trent. He praised the books of Maccabees as useful for historical reasons, and there is not any reason not to strongly respect them as such, like the first century writings of Josephus. I have read both of these sources, and they are very helpful ones, Holy Writ or not.

[milovany]

You may be right I originally thought his later additions left the "apocrypha" out but maybe not. One source said it was left out of the table of contents but was still printed. Later versions (after Luther's Death) of the Bible took his view (the apocrypha are books which are not regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable to read) as a reason to leave them out. Maybe printers just wanted to save money or time.

 

I believe I have read that since there was a question mark about these books for Protestants by this time, when the missionary movement started sending people all over the globe in the early to mid 1800s and since they wanted to take Bibles with them and since Bibles could be pretty unwieldy, these "questionable" books came out to save space and money. I just found an article called "Who Decides? Unraveling the Mystery of the Old Testament Canon" at Conciliar Press (an Orthodox printing company) that says this:

 

"They [the deuterocanonical books continued to be included in almost all Protestant versions of the Bible until the missionary movement of the first part of the nineteenth century. In order to save on shipping costs, missionary Bible societies began publishing partial Bibles (New Testaments, Gospels, etc.). Converts and religious movements that were born out of this missionary movement came to believe that the thirty-nine books in the truncated, missionary-society–produced Old Testaments were the only 'true' books of the Old Testament."

[Violet Crown]

But there is so much encrusted addition to the original Faith in the RC teachings that it's impossible to imagine conservative Lutherans and conservative RC's ever agreeing. In addition to those issues (Purgatory, praying to saints, the primacy of a pope, etc.), the key issue of justification by faith is really not resolvable. I have read the joint declaration (which did not involve conservative Lutherans), and having done so it has been really interesting to hear what various people think it says. I attended an RC high school open house where the RC religion teacher told me that it meant that the Lutherans were right all along. I have talked with Lutheran pastors who are certain that it means that the liberal Lutherans caved to the RC's. When I read it it sounded like an agreement to disagree. Something that ambiguous can't really be considered to solve or resolve anything.

I wasn't really proposing to resolve the Reformation. It just seems to me that there is a tendency among Christians--Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox all included--to see every difference among them as church-dividing, and as a further example of where We are right and They, by virtue of doing something different, are certainly wrong. Nothing is allowed to simply be a difference. To say this isn't to say that nothing is church-dividing; just that not everything is.

 

ETA: It's hard to imagine old Martin being thrilled about hesychasm or aerial toll-houses, either.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Sharon in Austin

[Ellie]

Is there anything at all wrong with just observing that the Protestant canon recognizes books X, and the Catholic canon recognizes books Y, and various Orthodox churches recognize books Z (with local variations)?

Of course, the Protestant "Canon" came from the Catholics in the first place. :D

 

Seems kind of brassy to decide that after Christians using certain books for close to 1000 years that, hey, they were wrong and we're right.

[Violet Crown]

Of course, the Protestant "Canon" came from the Catholics in the first place. :D

 

Seems kind of brassy to decide that after Christians using certain books for close to 1000 years that, hey, they were wrong and we're right.

Maybe, but ... now that they have settled on a narrower canon, surely that shouldn't be any more to Catholics than is the Orthodox having a wider canon? What I'm proposing is the Orthodox attitude (and the apparent Catholic attitude vis a vis the Orthodox) that different Old Testament canons are an acceptable variant among different traditions.