when did the orthodox church(s) add 3 Maccabees?

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

jen_fla

Guest
does anyone know when or how 3 Maccabees was placed in the Orthodox Bible as inspired?

thanks.
 
It was circulated with the Septuagint, so it did not need to be “added”.
 
Hesychios said:
It was circulated with the Septuagint, so it did not need to be “added”.
Click to expand...
yes after i posted that title i realized “added” probably wasn’t the best choice of word. apologies. :tiphat:

but do you know what year the orthodox church stated it was inspired? i read that some orthodox churches do not recognize 4 maccabees as canonical so i was wondering when this decision was officially made.

obviously i do not know much about orthodox christianity. thanks for your help.
 
jen_fla said:
…but do you know what year the orthodox church stated it was inspired? i read that some orthodox churches do not recognize 4 maccabees as canonical so i was wondering when this decision was officially made.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I can’t help you there.

Not my department :o

Really, I just don’t know the details. :yukonjoe:
 
Hesychios said:
Sorry, I can’t help you there.

Not my department :o

Really, I just don’t know the details. :yukonjoe:
Click to expand...
that’s ok, i’ll just have to keep digging. sometimes i am guilty of being too lazy in my research assuming some theological brainiac will come along and post the right answer in no time. 🙂

peace.
 
I did not even know of this book. I lead a shelterd life 😃 I thought Catholics & the Orthodox used the same books. Where do I find it?
 
here is a link for 3 mac

quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4451716

and for 4 mac

quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4496061

this is what the Catholic encyclopedia says:

The Third and Fourth Books of Machabees

III Mach. is the story of a persecution of the Jews in Egypt under Ptolemy IV Philopator (222-205 B. C.), and therefore has no right to its title. Though the work contains much that is historical, the story is a fiction. IV Mach. is a Jewish-Stoic philosophical treatise on the supremacy of pious reason, that is religious principles, over the passions. The martyrdorm of Eleazar and of the seven brothers (2 Maccabees 6:18-7) is introduced to illustrate the author’s thesis. Neither book has any claim to canonicity, though the first for a while received favourable consideration in some Churches.

taken from here:

newadvent.org/cathen/09495a.htm
 
no problem.

(and i never tire of seeing that lil hat tipping guy) 🙂
 
Dirk_Skene said:
I did not even know of this book. I lead a shelterd life 😃 I thought Catholics & the Orthodox used the same books. Where do I find it?
Click to expand...
I use the Oxford Study Bible-Expanded Edition. Back in the '70’s it was published under the title “Common Bible”…it offered an edition of the Bible in the RSV which had “all the books” the various traditions used…the Catholic canon plus those books used by the Orthodox, but not used by the Catholics…of course the Protestant canon was short of the “extra books”…this edition caused quite a stir among many evangelical/fundamentalists…even Jack Chick took notice and one of his comic books made mention of the “Common Bible” as one of the signs of the end times as an “ecumencial editon” (name removed by moderator)ired by “satan”.

I use this in my morning devotions…I enjoy reading some of the books that many Protestants are ignorant of…Judith…Wisdom…Psalm 151…3 Mac…Baruch is one of my least favorite…but it is interesting anyway.

Some of the notes in the Oxford Study Bible gives some of the brief history of the why’s and wherefore’s the church of the East and the church of the West used different canons.

I’d like to see them expand this edition even further and include those books which the Ethiopian and Coptic churches use…then we’d really have a “common Bible.”
 
jen_fla said:
as a quaker you don’t realize how that makes no sense.
Click to expand...
LOL as a Quaker…I do realize it…it made as much sense as the title to this thread…as I understand…the Orthodox didn’t ADD 3 Mac…it was in use before either the Orthodox or Catholic churches came into existence…some of the Jews of the Diaspora used it as sacred writings…I don’t think the Greek church had anything to do with what the Jews did or did not consider “sacred writings”.

“When did the orthodox church(s) add…” sounds “familiar”…“When did the Catholic church add 2 Maccabbes?” is in the same vein of “reasoning” it appears to me…

My point was one of levity:shrug: It was not to be made a point of contention…but of ironic humor. I obviously failed.🙂
 
jen_fla said:
…as a quaker you don’t realize how that makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Actually, that response was perfectly sensible.

Publisher is right. The early church just used the Septuagint library that they had available to them as diaspora Jews.

The big conflicts in the early church were over what constituted New testament Scripture. It was not until much later that scholars (like Jerome) began to question the deutero or “second” -canon, because they were aware through their own studies the Jews were not using it.

Even Roman Catholic apologetics make clear that the Jewish Pharisaical school after the First Revolt decided against these books because of their lack of antiquity and the tendency to validate and support Christian theological positions.

So the question might as well be “Why and when did the Roman Catholic church drop 3 & 4 Maccabees from the deutero-canon?” It is as valid a question as “why and when did the Orthodox add them?”

For myself, I don’t think it is much of an issue either way. But it is worth noting that the Orthodox are naturally more conservative than the western church in almost every way. Not surprising then, that some Orthodox synods would keep books that others find less important.
 
jen_fla said:
…as a quaker you don’t realize how that makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Actually, that response was perfectly sensible.

Publisher is right. The early church just used the Septuagint library that they had available to them as diaspora Jews.

The big conflicts in the early church were over what constituted New testament Scripture. Not surprisingly, that was a second and third century problem, since the first century was taken up in the writing of them!

It was not until much later that scholars (like Jerome) began to question the deutero or “second” -canon in the Septuagint, because they were aware through their own studies the Jews were not at that time using it.

Even Roman Catholic apologetics make clear that the Jewish Pharisaical school after the First Revolt decided against these books because of their lack of antiquity and the tendency to validate and support Christian theological positions. The decision is presumed to have been made at Yavne some time in the first century. It’s possible, but not proven. In any case the Jewish Rabbinical schools stopped using the Septuagint and introduced a curse upon the converts to Christianity in approximately the same era.

So the question might as well be “Why and when did the Roman Catholic church drop 3 & 4 Maccabees from the deutero-canon?” It is as valid a question as “why and when did the Orthodox add them?”

For myself, I don’t think it is much of an issue either way. But it is worth noting that the Orthodox are naturally more conservative than the western church in almost every way. Not surprising then, that some Orthodox synods would keep books that others find less important.
 
BILL PICK said:
This statement is WRONG Cathloic did not add any books to the bible,the prostants omit books from the bible
Click to expand...
Friend Bill,

Did you read the previous post by Friend Hesychios as well as my post just prior to it? Per our Orthodox friends…Catholics also “omit” books from the bible…don’t take offense where none was intended…I dare say my Bible and the Bible that most of those in my Meeting uses has more books in it than your Catholic Bible does…who removed what?🙂

Peace to you.
 
Publisher said:
LOL as a Quaker…I do realize it…it made as much sense as the title to this thread…as I understand…the Orthodox didn’t ADD 3 Mac…it was in use before either the Orthodox or Catholic churches came into existence…some of the Jews of the Diaspora used it as sacred writings…I don’t think the Greek church had anything to do with what the Jews did or did not consider “sacred writings”.

“When did the orthodox church(s) add…” sounds “familiar”…“When did the Catholic church add 2 Maccabbes?” is in the same vein of “reasoning” it appears to me…

My point was one of levity:shrug: It was not to be made a point of contention…but of ironic humor. I obviously failed.🙂
Click to expand...
you are right in that i worded the title poorly which is why i mentioned that before your comment. (is there anyway to change that at this point?)

everyone knows maccabees were in existence before Christ’s arrival, but your first paragraph doesn’t really jive coming from a Christian perspective, but rather a Jewish one. and at the council of Jamnia around 90 AD it was decided to exclude all maccabees in Jewish canon.

i suppose it would have been better to ask when did the orthodox Church officially decide to keep 3 and 4 (although i am really leaving 4 out of this as some orthodox churches do not think it’s inspired either).

i think there is good evidence Christ used the septuagint, but as far as i know Christ did not quote from 3 or 4, but i am hardly a scholar to say that with certainty. bottom line is i trust the Catholic Church to decide which books were inspired or not and the Catholic Church always used the septuagint for the OT. i do realize there was much debate and discussion upon certain books.

and i am sorry i missed your humor. 🙂 i think a timeline will help clear things up, because if you mean did the Catholic Church add maccabees 1 & 2 as in keeping them in the collection of inspired writings to be used by the Church that Christ left… then i would say yes, but if you mean did we add as in change our mind and now decide to keep it 1500 years later in the history or Christianity, then no.
 
Publisher said:
I use the Oxford Study Bible-Expanded Edition. Back in the '70’s it was published under the title “Common Bible”…even Jack Chick took notice and one of his comic books made mention of the “Common Bible” as one of the signs of the end times as an “ecumencial editon” (name removed by moderator)ired by “satan”… like to see them expand this edition even further and include those books which the Ethiopian and Coptic churches use…then we’d really have a “common Bible.”
Click to expand...
I’ll check it out. I did not even know that such exsisted. On dear old Jack … poor guy. I don’t think he’s happy unless he’s condeming somebody to hell.

On those other books you mentioned … might be some interesting reading. Thnks for mentioning it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top