The inspiration of 2 Maccabees

[Ginger2]

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?

Wonderful!!! This is a great example to prove my point.

The Divinely Inspired Scriptures are true, it is humans that error.

Mar 4:31 [It is] like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
“IT IS LIKE” indicates Jesus is telling a parable, not giving a science lesson.

Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Jesus was speaking and using what was known to the people at that time.

What if he had said, “The kingdom of heaven is like a hydrogen atom, …”?
Context. Jesus was speaking of a harvest.
History indicates the mustard seed was the smallest seed they would have sown back then and harvested.

The world’s smallest seed is the orchid

but it was not a harvested crop…also,

If Jesus had said, Mat 13:31 The kingdom of heaven is like an orchid seed, …
Mat 13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree

Jesus statements, when kept in content, were entirely accurate to science and history.

Ginger

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Here is an example of facts intentionally stated inaccurately in the Protos…

1 Chronicles 2:13-15: David was the “seventh” son.

1 Samuel 16:10-11: Jesse presents his “seven” sons, THEN he presents his eighth, David.

Probably, 1 Samuel 16:10-11 is the intentional misrepresentation, because since “eight” is the type, or symbol, meaning “saved,” making David #8 makes him king of the “saved” – like Christ. I.e., David is made #8 to make him a Christ picture.

 

[Ginger2]

Here is an example of facts intentionally stated inaccurately in the Protos…

You are speculating to make the example fit your belief.

If we are to speculate, a better explanation is that one of the sons died shortly after David was anointed, without being married or doing anything significant during his lifetime. It was and still is a common practice not to mention children who died young.

hen asked how many siblings are in my family, I say five, but my mother actually gave birth to six.

The above explanation maintains the Bible is completely accurate to the historical facts.

Ginger

 

[Peter_Dawson]

You are speculating to make the example fit your belief.

If we are to speculate, a better explanation is that one of the sons died shortly after David was anointed, without being married or doing anything significant during his lifetime. It was and still is a common practice not to mention children who died young.

hen asked how many siblings are in my family, I say five, but my mother actually gave birth to six.

The above explanation maintains the Bible is completely accurate to the historical facts.

Ginger

Hi, Ginger.

The reason why I gave this particular example is that it is unambiguous in the area which you claim is ambiguous.

If one of David’s brothers had died, then Jesse could not have presented seven BEFORE David.

But if you look at Chronicles, it says that David was the “seventh[born]”! (Eliab, the first born, establishes the logic of the series.)

So, you are wrong.

 

[Ginger2]

Hi, Ginger.

The reason why I gave this particular example is that it is unambiguous in the area which you claim is ambiguous.

If one of David’s brothers had died, then Jesse could not have presented seven BEFORE David.

But if you look at Chronicles, it says that David was the “seventh[born]”! (Eliab, the first born, establishes the logic of the series.)

So, you are wrong.

If the missing brother died shortly after David was anointed it is possible. 1 Chron comes after 1 Sam

However, I now understand what you are saying. You’re right that numbers also had symbolic significance and were used to provide a clear meaning that cannot be seen from a literal rendering. I just don’t think that is case.

The Exodus doesn’t make sense until you realize 40 years was not meant as an exact count, but rather symbolized a long period of time.

I concede. Your explanation is valid and includes consistency and accuracy in the Scriptures.

However, I don’t agree it is a deliberate distortion of the facts. If you are correct, then it is comparable to the 40 years example. 40 is not a deliberate distortion it is an accurate account, yet unspecific time line.

 

[Ginger2]

One other possibility is that the rendering on the original Hebrew falls short on clarity.

Hebrew had no punctuation, no vowels; no spaces between words,…Hebrew words often had much broader meanings then words in other languages. Some words would need an entire paragraph to accurately translate that word into English.

Whenever I have researched and studied supposed errors, I eventually find the answer to prove the verse in question is not in error. Often that means comparing texts, researching the culture, studying colloquialisms, and understanding ancient languages, etc.

The verse could have been speaking on the fact that Jesse presented all seven son. Then explained the youngest was not presented until later.

In English this doesn’t fly, and without being a scholar in Hebrew, I don’t promote such a theory. But that may be the way it would have been understood at the time it was written.

I wonder if asking a Rabbi or Jewish scholar could shed some light on these verse???

Ginger

 

[Peter_Dawson]

If the missing brother died shortly after David was anointed it is possible. 1 Chron comes after 1 Sam

The quoted 1 Chronicles text covers birth order. Thus, the last moment in the 1 Chronicles text is the first moment of David’s life. So, the presentation of “seven brothers” before David occurred after the last moment covered by the 1 Chronicles text.

It is unambiguous.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

If the missing brother died shortly after David was anointed it is possible. 1 Chron comes after 1 Sam

However, I now understand what you are saying. You’re right that numbers also had symbolic significance and were used to provide a clear meaning that cannot be seen from a literal rendering. I just don’t think that is case.

The Exodus doesn’t make sense until you realize 40 years was not meant as an exact count, but rather symbolized a long period of time.

I concede. Your explanation is valid and includes consistency and accuracy in the Scriptures.

However, I don’t agree it is a deliberate distortion of the facts. If you are correct, then it is comparable to the 40 years example. 40 is not a deliberate distortion it is an accurate account, yet unspecific time line.

Forty may have been a deliberate distortion. The Bible is full of these.

I think that one of the reasons why the contradictions are frequently obvious is because the Holy Spirit is teaching, “Guys, I’m not always being historical.”

 

[ababbidg]

Wonderful!!! This is a great example to prove my point.

The Divinely Inspired Scriptures are true, it is humans that error.

Mar 4:31 [It is] like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
“IT IS LIKE” indicates Jesus is telling a parable, not giving a science lesson.

Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Jesus was speaking and using what was known to the people at that time.

What if he had said, “The kingdom of heaven is like a hydrogen atom, …”?
Context. Jesus was speaking of a harvest.
History indicates the mustard seed was the smallest seed they would have sown back then and harvested.

The world’s smallest seed is the orchid

but it was not a harvested crop…also,

If Jesus had said, Mat 13:31 The kingdom of heaven is like an orchid seed, …
Mat 13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree

Jesus statements, when kept in content, were entirely accurate to science and history.

Ginger

Wow thanks for that irrelevant post. Everyone knows it is a parable. And your claim that orchids are not harvested is false. The flavoring vanilla comes from orchids. Fragrances for many perfumes come from orchids, among other uses. But that is beside the point. The point is that historical/scientific accuracies are not what make the theological teachings of books of the bible inspired.

 

[Ginger2]

My claim is orchids were not harvested by Jews in Jesus’ day.

but it was not a harvested crop

Notice the word “was”? That indicates past tense.

However, let us for a moment assume you are correct and the Jews were using vanilla to flavor their food. The verses in question say,

Mat 13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree

Is vanilla an herb or a spice.

If you want to promote the Bible as a flawed book you give reason for people to bring into question the whole Scriptures.

I’m not going down that road. I trust God to be truthful in all aspects, and hold to any discrepancies being only in the inferior mind of humans.

Ginger

 

[ababbidg]

Wonderful!!! This is a great example to prove my point.

The Divinely Inspired Scriptures are true, it is humans that error.

Mar 4:31 [It is] like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
“IT IS LIKE” indicates Jesus is telling a parable, not giving a science lesson.

Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Jesus was speaking and using what was known to the people at that time.

What if he had said, “The kingdom of heaven is like a hydrogen atom, …”?
Context. Jesus was speaking of a harvest.
History indicates the mustard seed was the smallest seed they would have sown back then and harvested.

The world’s smallest seed is the orchid

but it was not a harvested crop…also,

If Jesus had said, Mat 13:31 The kingdom of heaven is like an orchid seed, …
Mat 13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree

Jesus statements, when kept in content, were entirely accurate to science and history.

Ginger

Oh yes I forgot to mention that mustard does not grow into a tree, as you so kindly put in bold for us. This is another scientific inaccuracy but who really cares. Like I said, that is not what determines the inspiration of the bible.

 

[Ginger2]

Wrong again…

Brassica niger (black mustard) can grow up to 10 feet tall

I’d say that qualifies as a “tree”

“Let God be true and every man a liar”

 

[ababbidg]

Good point. Brassica nigra is technically classified as a weed, but oh well. The bible isn’t a textbook.

 

[Ginger2]

lol

Most people will tell you dandelions are weeds.

But I’ve eaten dandelion greens, dandelion buds, drank caffeine free coffee made from dandelion roots, and wine made from the flowers.

I’ve also eaten steamed nettles with melted butter. mmmm…butter can make almost anything taste good

 

[ababbidg]

Ok we are waay off topic lol, but I mean that it is classified as an “annual weedy plant”. Weed doesn’t mean it is bad. Lets stop talking about mustard now

 

[Spirithound]

“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.

My guess is that the author of 2 Maccabees didn’t know that he was writing Scripture. I believe St. Paul, in one of his epistles says something similarly self-deprecating.

 

[ababbidg]

My guess is that the author of 2 Maccabees didn’t know that he was writing Scripture. I believe St. Paul, in one of his epistles says something similarly self-deprecating.

Hmm, this is a good point. Perhaps the author was just being humble?

 

[diggerdomer]

Hmm, this is a good point. Perhaps the author was just being humble?

Perhaps. I also think that many authors may not have known or thought they were writing “Scripture.” I think of St. Paul, who was firing off letters left and right to communities he loved and cared about…I personally doubt he had an idea in his mind that he was writing Scripture (given that Scripture, for him, was what we know as the Old Testament, and he wrote before the Gospels were written). It’s the Church that decides (or realizes) what is Scriptural; the author of an individual book may or may not have known. That’s how inspiration works (imho).

Read the beginning (foreword, or intro) of Sirach, too, for an Old Testament example of an interesting insight into what actual “authorship” may have looked like.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Perhaps. I also think that many authors may not have known or thought they were writing “Scripture.” I think of St. Paul, who was firing off letters left and right to communities he loved and cared about…I personally doubt he had an idea in his mind that he was writing Scripture (given that Scripture, for him, was what we know as the Old Testament, and he wrote before the Gospels were written). It’s the Church that decides (or realizes) what is Scriptural; the author of an individual book may or may not have known. That’s how inspiration works (imho).

Read the beginning (foreword, or intro) of Sirach, too, for an Old Testament example of an interesting insight into what actual “authorship” may have looked like.

Here and there in Paul’s epistles we see him drafting what looks like an “Index Verse,” indicating how to interpret Scriptural types, or symbols.

He may have understood that he was writing Scripture.

 

[MKF]

Thank you George for a great question that I had not known about.

Thank you Peter for a great answer that seems to be supported by 2 Machabees 15:40 (the next line).

The Haydock Douay-Rheims version of the Bible has exhaustive commentary from the Saints and Doctors of the Church, etc. (nearly 1/3 to 1/2 of each page). Go there for more info.

A favorite for us, years ago, was 2 Machabees 7:27, because we were very uncertain how long one should nurse her children especially for modesty’s sake. The woman had to watch each of her seven sons be martyred for the Faith. She encouraged each to eternal happiness. It was a bigger moment as the youngest one came forward. We were edified to read that this martyr mother had nursed him 3 years.

We are grateful to the several companies that have preserved the Douay-Rheims Bible! We can trust it because it was “translated” at a time when one might be martyred for using it! It was worthy to die for! The same cannot be said about these items that call themselves “versions” or possibly the new copies of the DRB. Hopefully they are faithful. A good place to check is Gen 3:15. Does it say “she shall” as does the DRB or does it say “he shall”, etc.?

Mary
Roman-Catholic-Catechism.com/roman-catholic-bible.html
(See the online reference to the Catechism of the Bible for translation notes.)