The inspiration of 2 Maccabees

  • Thread starter Thread starter JosephGleason
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JosephGleason

Guest
I recently read “Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger”, by Gary Michuta. I found it very compelling, and I am considering the possibility that the Deuterocanonicals are inspired Scripture.

However, I am having some difficulty with the following passage:

“So these things being done with relation to Nicanor, and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me.” (2 Maccabees 15:38-39)

It appears here that the author of 2 Maccabees suggests that his own book may be in error, which certainly would be impossible if 2 Maccabees is fully inspired Scripture.

Can you give me any assistance concerning this verse?

Thank you!
 
I think it may mean more historical error than spiritual. When we say that Scripture cannot be in error we refer to the spiritual aspects, not the scientific or historical ones.
 
I don’t believe Scripture can ever err historically. That would contradict its inerrancy, correct?
 
JosephGleason said:
I don’t believe Scripture can ever err historically. That would contradict its inerrancy, correct?
Click to expand...
I agree Joseph. In fact, I don’t think inspired Scriptures are ever in error on anything - people are the ones who make the errors.

On my own forum someone said: The fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe is not supported by scripture, but people believed that it was, until proof to the contrary came along. But seeing as how it is still not supported by scripture you must still hold to the old beliefs.

My response: First, the Bible doesn’t say the Earth is the center of the universe. But if it did, …

NOUN
CENTER - Geometry. the middle point,
The sun may be the center of our solar system, but it is not necessarily the center of our universe.
CENTER - a point, place, person, etc., upon which interest, emotion, etc., focuses: His family is the center of his life.
The Earth is the center of God’s creation as this is where he placed Human Beings.
VERB
CENTER - to collect to or around a center; focus: He centered his novel on the Civil War.
Yes, the Earth is the center of the Universe according to God’s plan for mankind.

Ginger
 
It is not a Catholic dogma that Scripture is perfect historically or scientifically. This is for the most part up to the individual. While this article: catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp does not directly deal with what we’re discussing, it does a good job of explaining the Church’s position on science and faith, which is much the same as the position on history.
 
JosephGleason said:
I don’t believe Scripture can ever err historically. That would contradict its inerrancy, correct?
Click to expand...
Not correct. See the Catechism para 105 ff. Note particularly para 107 "he inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

Not ALL truth…but…“that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures”
 
diggerdomer said:
Not correct. See the Catechism para 105 ff. Note particularly para 107 "he inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

Not ALL truth…but…“that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures”
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand your point…

I don’t think anyone is saying all truth or knowledge is contained in Scriptures, only that what is written is true.

Are you saying some things written under inspiration can be false? But things concerning salvation are always true?
 
Ginger2 said:
Not sure I understand your point…

I don’t think anyone is saying all truth or knowledge is contained in Scriptures, only that what is written is true.

Are you saying some things written under inspiration can be false? But things concerning salvation are always true?
Click to expand...
I am saying that if you expect the Bible to present historical or biological or scientific or sociologic (etc.) things as true, you might be disappointed. The Bible is true. But, as the Church teaches, it’s true regarding the truths necessary for our salvation that God wanted/intended to be preserved there.

Methusaleh may have lived 969 years or not. Either way is ok for the Catholic faith.
 
Joseph,

Have you considered that the author of 2 Maccabees may not be conceding error in the sense of wrong history, but in the personal sense of simply narrating poorly? On my reading of the verse, this seems to be the case. Actually, it seems to be most likely a sort of well mannered humility of an author set to a great task.
Even if it were the case that he simply hoped he did not gloss over something or forget a certain detail, certainly a minute historical omission or even underestimation would not damage the book’s inspiriation; for then you would have quite a case against each of the for gospels, at least!

-Peter
 
PJY86 said:
Joseph,

Have you considered that the author of 2 Maccabees may not be conceding error in the sense of wrong history, but in the personal sense of simply narrating poorly? On my reading of the verse, this seems to be the case. Actually, it seems to be most likely a sort of well mannered humility of an author set to a great task.
Even if it were the case that he simply hoped he did not gloss over something or forget a certain detail, certainly a minute historical omission or even underestimation would not damage the book’s inspiriation; for then you would have quite a case against each of the for gospels, at least!

-Peter
Click to expand...
👍 Good answer. This makes a lot of sense to me.
 
JosephGleason said:
I recently read “Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger”, by Gary Michuta. I found it very compelling, and I am considering the possibility that the Deuterocanonicals are inspired Scripture.

However, I am having some difficulty with the following passage:

“So these things being done with relation to Nicanor, and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me.” (2 Maccabees 15:38-39)

It appears here that the author of 2 Maccabees suggests that his own book may be in error, which certainly would be impossible if 2 Maccabees is fully inspired Scripture.

Can you give me any assistance concerning this verse?

Thank you!
Click to expand...
GeorgeSword is right. God imposed on Himself no requirement that He never play with the facts.

In truth, God DOES play with the facts, rendering the narrative non-historical, in order to teach good theology.

To look at 2 Maccabees, and say, “Why, that’s a REALLY good history book! How glad I am that it has been inspired to teach GOOD HISTORY!,” is to miss the point of the book.
 
Now that raises a question…

The deutoros are not historically accurate.
Are the protocanonical books true to history?

Ginger
 
Ginger2 said:
Now that raises a question…

The deutoros are not historically accurate.
Are the protocanonical books true to history?

Ginger
Click to expand...
“…the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

So, where historical truth is necessary, for the sake of our salvation, yes. Otherwise, maybe and maybe not.
 
Please, that is not what I asked…

Are the Protocanical books historically accurate?
 
Ginger2 said:
Now that raises a question…

The deutoros are not historically accurate.
Are the protocanonical books true to history?

Ginger
Click to expand...
I don’t think that historical inaccuracy is limited to the Deuteros.
 
In one of the gospels (can’t remember which one right now), Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds. Scientifically, this is not accurate. There are seeds smaller than mustard seeds. I don’t think we should be skeptical of this gospel because of the inaccuracy, why should we be skeptical of other books due to historical/scientific inaccuracies?
 
ababbidg said:
In one of the gospels (can’t remember which one right now), Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds. Scientifically, this is not accurate. There are seeds smaller than mustard seeds. I don’t think we should be skeptical of this gospel because of the inaccuracy, why should we be skeptical of other books due to historical/scientific inaccuracies?
Click to expand...
Could be that the mustard seed was about the smallest seed in that area. When we look at historical and scientific aspects of Scripture, we need to take into account the locality, education, and customs surrounding the particular event. No instant messaging or searching Google.😃
 
Ginger2 said:
Please, that is not what I asked…

Are the Protocanical books historically accurate?
Click to expand...
I know what you asked. I gave you my answer (which is from the Catechism). Sorry if it didn’t help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top