Placement of Maccabees in the Canon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hopper
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hopper

Guest
So I was in a discussion with someone about the placement of 1st and 2nd Maccabees in the Canon of the scriptures.

It was pointed out to me that the person was following what was in the Catechism, which placed Maccabees after Esther. Which surprised me because any Catholic bible I picked up placed it as the last two books of the Old testament.

Any ideas why the Catechism would place it after Esther?

To be found in the Catholic Catechism under “The Profession of Faith” Article 3 under Sacred Scripture IV. The Canon of Scripture - 120 - and to be more exact page 34!

One thing I like about this forum is one can put any question out there and it’s like dropping a piece of candy outside and it is quickly found out by the ants of knowledge that come quickly to a conclusion…that is a complement - so I put it out there so that I may find an answer to my little curiosity as to why the Catechism places Maccabees after Esther and not at the end…

Thanks, Hopper 🙂
 
I don’t believe that the order of the books is a matter of dogma or even of doctrine.

I can see why the books would be put in either place. Put with Esther, they are together with the other historical books, which they are a part of. Put at the end, it is clearer that they are chronologically the last books of the OT. So I think either could be justified.

But I am just one ant. Others probably know more. 😃

–Jen
 
It is far from obvious how the books from the Old Testament – or for that matter, the New Testament – should be ordered. Certain blocks make sense – for example, obviously the Pentateuch is a logical block and should be at the beginning. But in other cases, it is harder to defend the ordering.

For example, even if we ignore the Deuterocanonical books, someone who reads a Hebrew (Old Testament) Bible based will read the books in a different order than the traditional Catholic ordering. I hardly think that someone who reads the Bible in Hebrew and Greek will be labeled a heretic.

Similarly, ordering the Pauline epistles addressed to communities and individuals from longest to shortest is hardly the most logical ordering.

One good argument for keeping the books in a consistent order is that it makes it easier to find a particular book or passage – even if one picks up an unfamiliar Bible.
 
I’m reading first Maccabees right now (the Navarre commentary) and, if I remember correctly, the commentators were under the impression that the same author compiled 1 and 2 Maccabees and Ester. I’m working off of memory, and that’s usually my first mistake. 😉 But I will go over the commentary and check that fact later on this evening.
 
Someplace I read that the Church at one time specified that these be placed after Malachi as the last books of the old testament. I think this was to counter the Protestant practice of omitting them or placing them in an appendix.

Current Catholic bibles tend to place them more logically at the end of the historic books to which they provide a conclusion, and before the wisdom literature.
 
Thank you all for your responses…I suppose the placement is of real no consequence - but if I were trying to memorize the cannon of scripture I want everything placed in proper order…and hence my inquiry since the Catechism places it after Esther and not as in every Catholic bible I’ve read at the end after Malachai…

and Jen
But I am just one ant. Others probably know more.
Click to expand...
–Jen
Click to expand...
You are a good ant…and made me smile at your response…🙂

God Bless, Hopper
 
Hopper said:
Thank you all for your responses…I suppose the placement is of real no consequence - but if I were trying to memorize the cannon of scripture I want everything placed in proper order…and hence my inquiry since the Catechism places it after Esther and not as in every Catholic bible I’ve read at the end after Malachai…
Click to expand...
Well, placing Maccabees after Esther is the ordering found in the NAB, the NJB, and NRSV-CE, while placing it after Malachai is the ordering found in Douay-Rheims (Challoner) and RSV-CE. So I guess you need to memorize both orders!
 
Oh thanks Bible Reader - I did not know that about the other versions…

Hopper 🙂
 
Interestingly, in the Nova Vulgata, 1 and 2 Macabees continue to be the last 2 books of the OT. This order is found in the Duoay Rhiems Bible and RSV-CE.

Whereas in the LXX, 1 and 2 Macabees occur at the end of the Historical books. This is followed in almost all modern English translations, such as the JB. NJB, NAB, NRSV-CE.

So perhaps the placement of the books has more to do with Latin vs Greek customs?

And by the way, the Christian Community Bible has another novel,eccletic and unintuitive ordering.
 
Hopper said:
Thank you all for your responses…I suppose the placement is of real no consequence
Click to expand...
Logically seen it should be just before the NT as it paved the road for Christ, without their freedom fight there had not been the necessary Jewish religious setup.
 
Revert,

**You wrote: ** I don’t believe that the order of the books is a matter of dogma or even of doctrine. I can see why the books would be put in either place. Put with Esther, they are together with the other historical books, which they are a part of. Put at the end, it is clearer that they are chronologically the last books of the OT. So I think either could be justified.​

Yes, you are right that the placement of the books of the Maacabees (1st and 2nd Maccabees in Catholic Bibles, 1st through 3rd Maccabees in Eastern Orthodox Bibles; and 1st through 4th Maccabees in Oecumenical Bibles, but as part of the so-called “Apocrhpha”). It is not a matter of doctrine or dogma. In Anglican and Lutheran Bibles, when they do include the “Apocrypha” (i.e. deutero-canonical writings), 1st and 2nd Maccabees occur at the end of the Old Testament (O.T.), but in the “Apocrypha” section, rather than as integral parts of the fully canonical Old Testament itself, as Lutherans and Anglicans regard canonicity.

There are two reasons that I would advocate for including the Books of Maccabees (however many of them) with the Historical Books of the O.T. rather than at the end of the Old Testament as they appear in some Catholic Bibles. (1) The two (three, or four) Books of Maccabees themselves are historical accounts, thus logically fit in better with the remainder of the O.T.'s historical writings, rather than ending the O.T. canon by a reversion to historical matter after the prophecies, giving the impression that the Books of the Maccabees are just some sort of awkwardly “left over” writings tacked on at the end of the O.T. as if they were appendices to the canon, instead of being integral parts of it; (2) ending the O.T. with the Prophetical Book of Malachi makes a dramatic conclusion to an O.T. book that contains such important prophecies, the fulfilment of which so clearly appears in the very next book of the Bible (the initial one of the New Testament), the Gospel of St. Matthew (and, of course, in the other Gospels, too).

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
This all depends on which Bible you are using. Those styled after the Douay-Rhiems Version (and the Latin Vulgate) will put the Books of Maccabees at the end of the Old Testament. (I know that the Vulgate, the first RSV-CE, the Knox, and the Douay-Rhiems all use this style)

New translations are styled after the order found in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), minus 3-4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras (3 Esdras in Vulgate), Psalm 151, and the Book of Odes. The LXX puts the Books of Maccabees at the end of the Historical Section of books. Translations using this style include: NAB, Jerusalem/New Jerusalem Bibles, etc.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter what order the Books appear in (unless of course it’s like moving Genesis to the middle of the Bible, or putting James in the Old testament Wisdom literature); so long as the Gospel of Christ’s Church is put forth through them.

Hope that helps,
A Brother in Christ,
-Anthony Fisher
 
As regards memorising the order of books in the Bible:
It works very well to approach the Bible like any new book, ie look in the table of contents and see where Maccabees is. The worst that can happen is to find that your particular translation has its Index at the end instead of at the beginning. One Catholic Bible that I read had Psalms at the end of the O.T.
Blessings for reading and loving The Word.
 
Hopper said:
So I was in a discussion with someone about the placement of 1st and 2nd Maccabees in the Canon of the scriptures.

It was pointed out to me that the person was following what was in the Catechism, which placed Maccabees after Esther. Which surprised me because any Catholic bible I picked up placed it as the last two books of the Old testament.

Any ideas why the Catechism would place it after Esther?

To be found in the Catholic Catechism under “The Profession of Faith” Article 3 under Sacred Scripture IV. The Canon of Scripture - 120 - and to be more exact page 34!

One thing I like about this forum is one can put any question out there and it’s like dropping a piece of candy outside and it is quickly found out by the ants of knowledge that come quickly to a conclusion…that is a complement - so I put it out there so that I may find an answer to my little curiosity as to why the Catechism places Maccabees after Esther and not at the end…

Thanks, Hopper 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, if you’re looking at the sections then Maccabees belongs in the historical section (so after Esther). Malachi is the last book in the “minor prophets” section, so it doesn’t really make sense to put it after there, but I guess you could argue that it’s the last books (or something like that) written before Christ so you put them at the end.

In my effort to actually read through the Bible, I did Maccabees after Esther because it made sense to me to read history after history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top