Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 1 decade ago

Why was the book of Maccabees taken out of the Bible (KJ, NIV, etc)?

20 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    You've got a couple good answers already, but I feel like explaining in more detail.

    Originally, there was no bible. The books existed individually, but were not compiled into one giant book. For over 300 years it was this way, and as squabbles over exactly what should be considered scripture and what shouldn't increased, the Church sat down in a few early councils and decided exactly what should and should not belong. Believe it or not, but if you dig around enough, you can find translations of documents written during these councils, complete with a list of 73 books considered valid scripture. Note that it was an inclusive list made, not an exclusive one, which means that more could potentially be added later, but none could be removed. (the Orthodox church has done just that, too - added a few books since then).

    For another 1200 years, these 73 books were considered scripture (except in 10xx, where the Great schism occured. This is about where the Orthodox decided more books belonged I think). About then, there became increasing dissent on exactly what belonged in the bible. Martin Luther wanted not just the seven books called "deuterocanon" (or apocrypha to people who don't consider it scripture) removed, but also Daniel and Revelation. Somewhere in there, the Church held another council where it officially declared and settled the matter on what belonged in the bible and what didn't. The Church tends to avoid officially settling an issue unless there is increasing dissent on it. But in this case, there was, and so they made the 73 books officially official. (though remember, they were accepted just fine until this point) This occured at the council of Trent (I think), which is an argument point for people who don't like those seven extra books. They seem to think that since it was officially declared then, that the books were only added then. but like I said, find an ancient transcript of some of the first councils, and those books are included.

    For a time afterward even, those seven books were still included in the bible - even protestant ones - in a separate section labeled "apocrypha". Even the 1611 King James versions included it. Only in the last couple of centuries were those books left out entirely. (I am told it was to save on ink and paper, but who knows)

  • dorthy
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    Book Of Maccabees

  • 1 decade ago

    It was originally thought that the Jews left the book of Maccabee out during the Council of Jamnia (sp?) back in 90 CE because it was thought that only books originally written in Hebrew could be included in the Tanakh, however Daniel was written largely in Aramaic and some scholars think the original Maccabee was written in Hebrew first as well.

    The thing is, there is no real reason given ... I understand that it's correct historically so it probably should have been, but there are many reasons why the apocrypha type books were not included.

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/avEPq

    I prefer the King James Version, however I have an Amplified Version, New International Version and a Jerusalem Bible which includes the Apocrypha. I don't believe the Jerusalem Version is the anointed Word of God, however, it provides a scholar with loads of historical knowledge. I agree totally that the NIV is NOT reliable for the reasons you have stated. Not only does it change the wording of the scriptures but also deleted some also. For example compare the King James Version of Acts 8:37, 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. Now the same passage according to the NIV, Acts 8: 34 The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. 36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. What happened to verse 37? By omitting this scripture the very basic foundation of salvation is not encouraged. The example of belief, repentance before baptism is not provided and misleads the reader. gatita Apostolic Believer In One God, Jesus

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    This is why people in church don't know what they need. They need to know about the first century since that is the setting of the pinnacle event of the church. But they think the Bible has all the answers, when in fact it has only the essential ones, but needs other texts to support it historically, such as what the new moon is. When people are ignorant of history, the essential texts can be ripped from context right out of their place in history. Let's relearn our history and stop worshipping God in ignorance.

  • 1 decade ago

    As the Reformation moved along Protestant Leaders began to question the decisions made by Catholic Church fathers in deciding the canon of scripture. The decision was generally to follow the traditional practices of the Jews at the time of Jesus and the apostles. Included in this was the exclusion of anything that was originally written in Greek as (Hebrew/ old testament) scripture.

    Pity. I feel I & II Maccabees are of more merit than Daniel, which actually was first written Greek and Aramaic and then clumsily transliterate into Hebrew during the time of the Maccabees.

  • 1 decade ago

    Among Palestinian Jews, it was rejected in the First Century CE because no Hebrew version of it existed at the time, only Greek. The argument was that the books must have been written after the period of divine revelation, which supposedly ended with Ezra.

    Christians were perfectly happy with all the books in the Greek version of scripture until Martin Luther needed to undermine Roman authority, which he did by coming up with two doctrines, "sola fide" (to eliminate any notion that human effort has any power to achieve salvation for anyone) and "sola scriptura" (to provide a validating authority outside of Rome for his assertions).

    Unfortunately, passages in books such as 1 an 2 Maccabees disagreed with his first assertion, so he used the question of their Jewish status to reject them. There were other books (such as James) that he would have liked to reject, but he had no pretext to do so. The Catholic and Orthodox churches still accept all these books as inspired.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    the Maccabee bible was found by the roman catholic who perrsiucuted God,s truly people and changed he commandents of Christ for when God gave Moses the two tablets a very strict commandment was on it which saidddd: tht we must keep the Sabbath holy. Six days thou labour. The catholic religion was formed from paganism and half Christianity. I do not support this Bible like it or not. I ama fearless Christian.

  • 1 decade ago

    It is included in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons. Protestants and Jews regard it as generally reliable historically, but not a part of Scripture.

  • Anonymous
    6 years ago

    I haven't the slightest ideal, only God knows for sure. When He come to take us home, I will ask Him. In the mean time, I'm trusting His lead..... Holy Sprit guide.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.