Book of Maccabees

[Augustine3]

To my astonishment Alcimus was appointed to be high priest despite the fact he does not descend from the line of a priestly family. Is this one of the reasons why the Jews reject the book of Maccabees to be the inspired word of God?

Also Jonathan (Judas’ brother) was appointed to be high priest by King Alexander. Was this legitimate? Shouldn’t it have been an authoritative Jewish community to appoint the high priest?

 

[WesleyF]

the Jews reject the book of Maccabees to be the inspired word of God?

Not all Jews. The Ethiopian Jews have Maccabees in their canon. The Jews who rejected Maccabees did so as a result of dispensing with the Greek scriptures and hold to their own identity as Hebrew speaking Jews.

 

[Celticnovice]

I have never heard that objection from Jewish scholars before, but that doesn’t’ mean what you are saying isn’t true. I thought the rejection came from choosing the Babylonian canon over the Greek canon?

 

[Augustine3]

Not all Jews. The Ethiopian Jews have Maccabees in their canon. The Jews who rejected Maccabees did so as a result of dispensing with the Greek scriptures and hold to their own identity as Hebrew speaking Jews.

On that note, from my understanding (please correct me if I’m wrong) the Masoretic text was complied from Hebrew texts only in order to break free from Greek texts (and Christians!). If that is the case why bother re-translating them into Hebrew if they were already in Hebrew?

God bless,

 

[NotWorthy]

To my astonishment Alcimus was appointed to be high priest despite the fact he does not descend from the line of a priestly family. Is this one of the reasons why the Jews reject the book of Maccabees to be the inspired word of God?

Also Jonathan (Judas’ brother) was appointed to be high priest by King Alexander. Was this legitimate? Shouldn’t it have been an authoritative Jewish community to appoint the high priest?

The fact that the High Priests during Jesus time were hand-picked by the Romans would sort of eliminate this line of reasoning.

And, if John Hyrcanus was an illegitimate high-priest, then what does it say of the 100 or so years of high priests that descended from him. If I recall correctly, the Hyrcanus line of high-priests was eliminated by Herod around 30-something BC.

As to your original thougths, the Book of Maccabees was highly thought of by the 1st century Jews. Didn’t you ever wonder why 5 of the 12 Apostles were named after heroes of Maccabees? (Simon x 2, Judas x 2, and John)

 

[WesleyF]

On that note, from my understanding (please correct me if I’m wrong)** the Masoretic text was complied from Hebrew texts only in order to break free from Greek texts** (and Christians!). If that is the case why bother re-translating them into Hebrew if they were already in Hebrew?

The Masoretic texts weren’t compiled for that purpose (not sure why they were compiled). They were compiled in the 7th to 11th centuries AD. My point was that the Hebrew speaking Jews in the first century rejected the Greek Septuagint because that’s the Old Testament that the Christians were using.

 

[Augustine3]

As to your original thougths, the Book of Maccabees was highly thought of by the 1st century Jews.

The American bible commentary does not seem to agree:

“With the Roman control of Palestine in 63 B.C., the Republic and later the Empire became heartily detested. The eulogy of Rome in this chapter is one of the reasons why 1 Maccabees was not preserved by the Palestinian Jews of the century that followed.”

God bless,

The Masoretic texts weren’t compiled for that purpose (not sure why they were compiled). They were compiled in the 7th to 11th centuries AD. My point was that the Hebrew speaking Jews in the first century rejected the Greek Septuagint because that’s the Old Testament that the Christians were using.

Can someone confirm the Masoretes only collected Hebrew texts and that’s one of the reasons why they don’t have all the books of the Septuagint?

God bless,

 

[bmullins]

It’s common knowledge that the Jewish canon was chosen on several criteria and one of those was indeed that it be written in Hebrew or in very rare cases Aramaic.

The principles guiding the rabbis in the selection of sacred books have not come down to us in any clear-cut delineation but appear to have included the following:

The writing had to be composed in Hebrew. The only exceptions, which were written in Aramaic, were Daniel 2-7, writings attributed to Ezra (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26), who was recognized as the founding father of post-Exilic Judaism, and Jer. 10:11. Hebrew was the language of Sacred Scripture, Aramaic the language of common speech.
The writing had to be sanctioned by usage in the Jewish community. The use of Esther at Purim made it possible for it to be included in the canon. Judith, without such support, was not acceptable.
The writings had to contain one of the great religious themes of Judaism, such as election, or the covenant. By reclassifying the Song of Songs as an allegory, it was possible to see in this book an expression of covenantal love.
The writing had to be composed before the time of Ezra, for it was popularly believed that inspiration had ceased then. Jonah was accepted because it used the name of an early prophet and dealt with events before the destruction of Nineveh, which occurred in 612. Daniel, a pseudonymous writing, had its setting in the Exile and therefore was accepted as an Exilic document.

Check out Chapter 31 of Old Testament Life and Literature

 

[Augustine3]

It’s common knowledge that the Jewish canon was chosen on several criteria and one of those was indeed that it be written in Hebrew or in very rare cases Aramaic.

Were the Hebrew texts re-translated or just collected and accepted as canon?
The reason I ask is I’m wondering by re-translating the Hebrew texts would explain why there are differences is some watered down translations and variances compared to the dead seas scrolls…

Brother in Christ,

 

[NotWorthy]

The American bible commentary does not seem to agree:

“With the Roman control of Palestine in 63 B.C., the Republic and later the Empire became heartily detested. The eulogy of Rome in this chapter is one of the reasons why 1 Maccabees was not preserved by the Palestinian Jews of the century that followed.”

I’m talking early 1st century Judaism, around Jesus’ time, not late 1st century, when there seemed to be a little tense-ness between Jews and Christians.

 

[NotWorthy]

Were the Hebrew texts re-translated or just collected and accepted as canon?
The reason I ask is I’m wondering by re-translating the Hebrew texts would explain why there are differences is some watered down translations and variances compared to the dead seas scrolls…

Brother in Christ,

I think they were re-translated to Hebrew back in the 14th century… or some time during the Middle Ages, but I don’t remember where I got this from.