Hebrews 11:35 refers to 2 Maccabees ch 7?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicKnight3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicKnight3

Guest
From what I understand this directly refers to this and this was one big sticking point about the letter to the Hebrews for Martin Luther.

Hebrews 11:35 (NIV)

35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection.

2nd Maccabees ch 7:1

1 On another occasion a Jewish mother and her seven sons were arrested. The king was having them beaten to force them to eat pork.

If this is referring to this as most scholars believe, then what does that mean about the 7 books of the Deuterocanonicals?
 
CatholicKnight3 said:
From what I understand this directly refers to this and this was one big sticking point about the letter to the Hebrews for Martin Luther.

Hebrews 11:35 (NIV)

35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection.

2nd Maccabees ch 7:1

1 On another occasion a Jewish mother and her seven sons were arrested. The king was having them beaten to force them to eat pork.

If this is referring to this as most scholars believe, then what does that mean about the 7 books of the Deuterocanonicals?
Click to expand...
In reading through Luther’s commentaries on Hebrews, I do not see any of his questioning having to do with its connection to 2 Macc. in 11:35.

Did the writer consider 2 Macc. inspired if he makes an allusion to events that happened during that time period? This does not necessarily follow. Other non-biblical books are quoted in scripture, but not treated as Scripture. Jude quotes from the Apocryphal Book of Enoch in Jude 14, and some see a possible allusion to the Assumption of Moses in Jude 1:9. Paul quotes pagan poets and philosophers on Mars Hill, and an allusion to the Penitence of Jannes and Jambres may be found in 2 Timothy 3:8. Even within Hebrews, the writer may be alluding to spurious accounts concerning Jeremiah and Isaiah in 11:37.
 
Hebrews 11:35 (NIV) 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection.

see: 1 Kings 17-17-24: 2Kings 4:32-37 ( the widow of Zerephath and thr Shunammite woman rec’vd their sons back from the dead.) Ignatius Catholic Study Bible
 
CatholicKnight3 said:
what does that mean about the 7 books of the Deuterocanonicals?
Click to expand...
Even if Hebrews was referring to 2 Macc, it wouldn’t necessarily mean anything for the deuterocanonicals, assuming you’re talking about the canon of scripture. 🙂
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
In reading through Luther’s commentaries on Hebrews, I do not see any of his questioning having to do with its connection to 2 Macc. in 11:35.

Did the writer consider 2 Macc. inspired if he makes an allusion to events that happened during that time period? This does not necessarily follow. Other non-biblical books are quoted in scripture, but not treated as Scripture. Jude quotes from the Apocryphal Book of Enoch in Jude 14, and some see a possible allusion to the Assumption of Moses in Jude 1:9. Paul quotes pagan poets and philosophers on Mars Hill, and an allusion to the Penitence of Jannes and Jambres may be found in 2 Timothy 3:8. Even within Hebrews, the writer may be alluding to spurious accounts concerning Jeremiah and Isaiah in 11:37.
Click to expand...
…except the difference is the Early Christians accepted the books of Maccabees as canonical in the council of Carthage, 397 AD
 
Gaelic Bard:
Quote:

Did the writer consider 2 Macc. inspired if he makes an allusion to events that happened during that time period? This does not necessarily follow. Other non-biblical books are quoted in scripture, but not treated as Scripture. Jude quotes from the Apocryphal Book of Enoch in Jude 14, and some see a possible allusion to the Assumption of Moses in Jude 1:9. Paul quotes pagan poets and philosophers on Mars Hill, and an allusion to the Penitence of Jannes and Jambres may be found in 2 Timothy 3:8. Even within Hebrews, the writer may be alluding to spurious accounts concerning Jeremiah and Isaiah in 11:37.
Click to expand...
Paul had no idea there was even going to be a book or what writings were inspired so why ask that question?

The same body that said Hebrews was inspired text said 2 Mac was inspired. You have got to believe in the entire bible or believe in none of it. If you believe in the possibility that error was made in the late 4th century, then all books are suspect.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
latingirl said:
…except the difference is the Early Christians accepted the books of Maccabees as canonical in the council of Carthage, 397 AD
Click to expand...
The Council at Carthage was a local synod, not an ecumenical council. The fact is that Catholics were free to dispute the deuterocanonical books until Trent. Even Cardinal Cajetan did not consider them canonical.

Jon
 
concretecamper said:
Paul had no idea there was even going to be a book or what writings were inspired so why ask that question?

The same body that said Hebrews was inspired text said 2 Mac was inspired. You have got to believe in the entire bible or believe in none of it. If you believe in the possibility that error was made in the late 4th century, then all books are suspect.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
Click to expand...
Not the subject of the op. The subject is whether the potential allusion to 2 Macc. in Heb. 11:35 confers canonical status to it.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Not the subject of the op. The subject is whether the potential allusion to 2 Macc. in Heb. 11:35 confers canonical status to it.
Click to expand...
Both of you are right.😉 Heb 11:35 allusion to 2 Macc need not necessarily confer the latter canonical status. OTOH the body that canonized Heb also did to Macc. What reason is there many years later to disbelieve that one is canonical and the other is not? Not sure what the OP wants but I guess that might be his intention.
 
JonNC said:
The fact is that Catholics were free to dispute the deuterocanonical books until Trent.
Click to expand...
If we ignore the Council of Florence? :rolleyes:
Gaelic_Bard said:
The subject is whether the potential allusion to 2 Macc. in Heb. 11:35 confers canonical status to it.
Click to expand...
Many things are alluded to in the NT, other things are not. This is not a good argument in favor of canonicity or against.
 
Look. This was more of a rhetorical question in order to illustrate a point.

It does show a point in regards to the long debate about the Catholic and Easter Orthodox bibles, and the protestant bible. One containing 66 books while the other contains 73.

I do know the 7 books that are in question were indeed a part of the Jewish official doctrine while Jesus walked the earth. There is nothing in the new testament suggesting that those books were a disgrace or should be taken out. Nothing. Rather important thing to let the disciples know. Right? Nothing from the Holy Spirit that inspired any of the disciples to write about these books as apocryphal. Nothing.

I was once told by a Baptist (we had a good conversation) that unless you are reading from the King James Version (a specific version of the KJV too) that it cannot be seen as truly of God.

So, I asked him politely to show me the chapter and verse that he read that in the KJV. He looked at me and said it is not written in there. So, I said, well that is interesting isn’t it? You said if it is not written in the KJV, then it is not of God. What you just said, is not written in there, so what does that mean?

I said, unless you are suggesting that the Holy Spirit did not feel the need to let us know that the only TRUE version of the word of God will be written in 1611.

He understood my point. I find it fascinating how we are sometimes as people. I do the same thing. We apply our reality and our way of life to the way people lived over the centuries.

Do people consider there was no “bible” for close to 400 years after Christ ascended? Even if there was, for at least 1000 years 1% if that, of the world could read and write. The printing press was not invented till the 1400s. We did not have the versus be separated out until the medieval times by a Catholic monk.

So, what did Christians do? They went by the ORAL TRADITION. Oral teachings, passed down from the original disciples. These traditions all traced back to Christ instituting them.

For those that are solo-scriptura, then you need to adhere to 1 Timothy 3:15 that says the Church is the pillar of truth.

That is the point of the rhetorical question I presented.
 
aspirant said:
If we ignore the Council of Florence? :rolleyes:

Many things are alluded to in the NT, other things are not. This is not a good argument in favor of canonicity or against.
Click to expand...
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
Click to expand...
-Cardinal Cajetan

Cardinal Cajetan was a contemporary, and adversary, of Martin Luther.
Jon
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
I believe his point was that even after Florence, they were still in dispute by orthodox Catholic clergy.
Click to expand...
Or Cajetan was, on this point, simply ignorant or wrong. We have no need of submission to Cardinal Cajetan’s opinions.
 
aspirant said:
Or Cajetan was, on this point, simply ignorant or wrong. We have no need of submission to Cardinal Cajetan’s opinions.
Click to expand...
Of course you don’t. That isn’t the point, though. If the canon were so set in stone, why wasn’t he disciplined? How often do apologists accuse Cajetan of “removing books from the Bible”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top