Good video! I like to have a Bible with the Apocrypha between the Testaments, not just because it helps to connect the two, but it actually feels like scripture to me. I think Protestants should hold it in much higher regard than we do. If we don't, it's our loss.
I knew Catholics had "extra" books. It wasn't until I was in my late thirties that I got curious about these books. I got a book from the library. I was gobsmacked when I read the Maccabees. I think my jaw was on the floor half the time. I kept thinking - why on earth have I never heard any of this stuff before! TBH, I don't believe these books are inspired, but I think they are necessary to read. Like Enoch and Jubilees and Jasher - I think they are important. I think I understand the NT and their mindset better. I strongly encourage all my friends to read all these books. FYI - I have my great great grandmother's huge (weighs about 10 lbs) 250 year old Luther German bible. Even tho it is Luther's bible but it still has the apocrypha in it. Jam packed with study notes too! I'd love to read the notes, but unfortunately I don't read German 😥
Here's and oldie but goodie for Maccabees fans: THE CAMBRIDGE BIBLE FOR SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES General Editor for the Old Testament: A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D. THE FIRST BOOK OF MACCABEES WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY THE REV. W. FAIRWEATHER, M.A., AND J. SUTHERLAND BLACK, LL.D. CAMBRIDGE 1897 Lots of commentary and notes...
When I believed, 45 years ago, in a debate, a Catholic quoted out of one of the Maccabees when I hit him with a "gotcha" question about praying to anyone or thing but Jesus. He quoted something about asking Saints to intercede on our behalf, he wasn't praying to them, he was asking them to pray for him. The Bible I had then did not have the Apocrypha, and I thought the Catholic Bible had different books than mine. Sadly, though I understand what the apocrypha is now, I still have not read any of it. I am in Joshua right now, I probably won't read straight through, but when I get to the end of the Hebrew Bible I will read some of the Apocrypha this time around. It is in my HarperCollins Study Bible, no reason not to.
Sure we should use the Apocrypha to know the history between Malachi and Mathew but we shouldnt hold it in the same regard to the Bible because the Apocrypha is not genuine God inspired scripture.
Indeed. Though it should be noted that referencing a book doesn't say anything about it's canonical status (i.e. Jude referencing Enoch and the Ascension of Moses, the Hebrew Bible referencing books like Jashar and other Annals, etc.). But whether they are canonical or not, knowing such background literature helps us better interpret Scripture indeed.
@@DiscipleDojo noted. But don't lose sight and use it as a double standard when an atheist challenges you about Paul referencing works that aren't in the OT either! You should really speak with Gary Michuta. He's the leading expert on this issue. He and his team. They've done great work.
@@tillo1981 I've never had an atheist make such a challenge...and it wouldn't be very challenging to begin with, as Paul frequently cites pagan poets. 🤷
Yes. Was bowled over when I first read Tobit and Wisdom and couldn't believe they weren't in the Bible I'd been handed. Absolutely beautiful stuff. On reflection, I can see some things certain strands of Protestants would find objectionable in Tobit but I'm of the firm opinion that if Protestantism had had a coherent rational to keep Wisdom part of the canon, without letting in the rest of the books, it would have done so.
@@DrGero15 Which part? The aspects of Tobit some protestants might not like? Off the top of my head, "alms-giving delivers from death" and the use of the various fish parts to exorcise Asmodeus and heal Tobit. Or do you mean my argument that Protestants would have kept Wisdom if they could? On that, I think it's pretty simple: there's relatively little in Wisdom that touches on the Protestant/Catholic divide and it has some of the clearest Messianic passages, along with a real hyperdrive to the Wisdom personified revelation you begin to see in Proverbs. I remember picking up the Orthodox Study Bible and reading Wisdom and the notes were like, "here's Jesus...and also here...over there too...and don't forget about yonder". And it's extremely plain that Paul (in Romans in particular) and John were, at the very least, drawing on the kind of Judaism that Wisdom was coming from. So, basically there's lots of good stuff in Wisdom that practically any Christian can benefit from. But how does it make sense to accept Wisdom, almost certainly the last of the deutero-canonical books written (at least, if we're using the Catholic canon), but reject Sirach or 2nd Maccabees? "Let's go with the canon of the modern Hebrew Bible" is a concrete idea and defensible, even if it no longer persuades me. "Let's go with those books that don't disturb our theology" is much less defensible and Protestantism broadly agreed, which is why no one followed Luther in doubting James, Hebrews, Revelation, etc.
Yeshua never broke the Torah. He kept Shabbat. The times that the Pharisees said He was breaking Shabbat, it was the extra laws that they added, traditions of men, that had nothing to do with the law given by God.
yep. because if the Jews knew their tanakh, or septuagint in the diaspora, Isaiah 49:6. Paul is a continuation of what God the Father said to The Son in Heaven. hence, the servant (Son of Man) must be handed over to the hands of men to be suffered and unalived. (Daniel 9:26, Matt 17:22-23; Mark 9:30-31; Luke 2:47). the “One like a Son of Man” is Jesus but its also us because He became like us so our cup runneth over, never stopping aka Grace. (before you say it no and i’ll throw James 2:24 at you.)
Disciple Dojo, why you shouldn't read Maccabees, because it's not inspired by God. The naughty Alexandria's translated the Old Testament Hebrew into Greek, and ADDED many other books to the Septuagint, including Maccabees. The Old Testament canon was closed way before the Alexandria's ADDED those books.
That has been entirely debunked. Rabbi Akiva attempted to create a unified cannon in 130 AD. Even 700 years later we have debate records with Jews rejecting Esther as scripture. The Deuterocannon is inspired scripture and quoted in the New Testament and by the first 3 centuries of Christians.
Your protestant forefathers had it in their bible. Also, using sola scriptura, tell me what the Feast of Dedication is and why in the winter in John 10:22.
1 & 2 Maccabees was my start to becoming Catholic. It was over a 10 year journey.
Don't tell them that!😂
Good video! I like to have a Bible with the Apocrypha between the Testaments, not just because it helps to connect the two, but it actually feels like scripture to me. I think Protestants should hold it in much higher regard than we do. If we don't, it's our loss.
John 10:22. What is the Feast of Dedication and why in the winter? The answer is in 1 Mac 4 and 2 Mac 10.
You need to speak with Gary Michuta about the Deuterocanon!!! His channel is the Apocryphal Apocalypse
I was thinking the same thing!
You also get to learn more about why Hanukkah is a miracle of God. Were celebrating Christmas and Hanukkah this year
I'm going through this book now. Very interesting. 👍
Great stuff. Looking forward to the whole interview.
I knew Catholics had "extra" books. It wasn't until I was in my late thirties that I got curious about these books. I got a book from the library. I was gobsmacked when I read the Maccabees. I think my jaw was on the floor half the time. I kept thinking - why on earth have I never heard any of this stuff before! TBH, I don't believe these books are inspired, but I think they are necessary to read. Like Enoch and Jubilees and Jasher - I think they are important. I think I understand the NT and their mindset better.
I strongly encourage all my friends to read all these books.
FYI - I have my great great grandmother's huge (weighs about 10 lbs) 250 year old Luther German bible. Even tho it is Luther's bible but it still has the apocrypha in it. Jam packed with study notes too! I'd love to read the notes, but unfortunately I don't read German 😥
Here's and oldie but goodie for Maccabees fans:
THE CAMBRIDGE BIBLE FOR SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
General Editor for the Old Testament:
A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D.
THE FIRST BOOK OF MACCABEES
WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY
THE REV. W. FAIRWEATHER, M.A.,
AND
J. SUTHERLAND BLACK, LL.D.
CAMBRIDGE 1897
Lots of commentary and notes...
It's also interesting that II Maccabees 2 describes what happens to the Ark of the Covenant.
When I believed, 45 years ago, in a debate, a Catholic quoted out of one of the Maccabees when I hit him with a "gotcha" question about praying to anyone or thing but Jesus. He quoted something about asking Saints to intercede on our behalf, he wasn't praying to them, he was asking them to pray for him. The Bible I had then did not have the Apocrypha, and I thought the Catholic Bible had different books than mine.
Sadly, though I understand what the apocrypha is now, I still have not read any of it. I am in Joshua right now, I probably won't read straight through, but when I get to the end of the Hebrew Bible I will read some of the Apocrypha this time around. It is in my HarperCollins Study Bible, no reason not to.
There's hundreds of years between the gospel events and the prophets. Why not fill the gap?
Better question: why create it in the first place?
It’s historical
Sure we should use the Apocrypha to know the history between Malachi and Mathew but we shouldnt hold it in the same regard to the Bible because the Apocrypha is not genuine God inspired scripture.
When that open mat?
I waiting to get my questions answered
Please, make it before the Christmas or New Year
Could you?
@@pablopablo1620 probably not. I have do it when Gregory is free as well, so the holidays are hard to coordinate.
Enter the Dojo!
Hebrews 11:35-37 is a reference to 2 Mac 7!!!
Indeed. Though it should be noted that referencing a book doesn't say anything about it's canonical status (i.e. Jude referencing Enoch and the Ascension of Moses, the Hebrew Bible referencing books like Jashar and other Annals, etc.). But whether they are canonical or not, knowing such background literature helps us better interpret Scripture indeed.
He says that because many protestants claim that the deurocanonical books aren't in the scriptures partly because they're not quoted in the NT.
@@DiscipleDojo noted. But don't lose sight and use it as a double standard when an atheist challenges you about Paul referencing works that aren't in the OT either! You should really speak with Gary Michuta. He's the leading expert on this issue. He and his team. They've done great work.
@Thurold or are they??? 🤔
@@tillo1981 I've never had an atheist make such a challenge...and it wouldn't be very challenging to begin with, as Paul frequently cites pagan poets. 🤷
2 Maccabees reads more like an anthology.
1 Maccabees reads more like a historical record.
Personally more of a Tobit and Wisdom of Solomon fan.
Love Tobit
Read Sirach also, especially if you like Wisdom of Solomon.
Yes. Was bowled over when I first read Tobit and Wisdom and couldn't believe they weren't in the Bible I'd been handed. Absolutely beautiful stuff. On reflection, I can see some things certain strands of Protestants would find objectionable in Tobit but I'm of the firm opinion that if Protestantism had had a coherent rational to keep Wisdom part of the canon, without letting in the rest of the books, it would have done so.
@@Obilisk18 Can you explain?
@@DrGero15 Which part? The aspects of Tobit some protestants might not like? Off the top of my head, "alms-giving delivers from death" and the use of the various fish parts to exorcise Asmodeus and heal Tobit. Or do you mean my argument that Protestants would have kept Wisdom if they could?
On that, I think it's pretty simple: there's relatively little in Wisdom that touches on the Protestant/Catholic divide and it has some of the clearest Messianic passages, along with a real hyperdrive to the Wisdom personified revelation you begin to see in Proverbs. I remember picking up the Orthodox Study Bible and reading Wisdom and the notes were like, "here's Jesus...and also here...over there too...and don't forget about yonder". And it's extremely plain that Paul (in Romans in particular) and John were, at the very least, drawing on the kind of Judaism that Wisdom was coming from.
So, basically there's lots of good stuff in Wisdom that practically any Christian can benefit from. But how does it make sense to accept Wisdom, almost certainly the last of the deutero-canonical books written (at least, if we're using the Catholic canon), but reject Sirach or 2nd Maccabees? "Let's go with the canon of the modern Hebrew Bible" is a concrete idea and defensible, even if it no longer persuades me. "Let's go with those books that don't disturb our theology" is much less defensible and Protestantism broadly agreed, which is why no one followed Luther in doubting James, Hebrews, Revelation, etc.
Yeshua never broke the Torah. He kept Shabbat. The times that the Pharisees said He was breaking Shabbat, it was the extra laws that they added, traditions of men, that had nothing to do with the law given by God.
🌹💐🌟💐🌹
yep. because if the Jews knew their tanakh, or septuagint in the diaspora, Isaiah 49:6. Paul is a continuation of what God the Father said to The Son in Heaven. hence, the servant (Son of Man) must be handed over to the hands of men to be suffered and unalived. (Daniel 9:26, Matt 17:22-23; Mark 9:30-31; Luke 2:47). the “One like a Son of Man” is Jesus but its also us because He became like us so our cup runneth over, never stopping aka Grace. (before you say it no and i’ll throw James 2:24 at you.)
Disciple Dojo, why you shouldn't read Maccabees, because it's not inspired by God. The naughty Alexandria's translated the Old Testament Hebrew into Greek, and ADDED many other books to the Septuagint, including Maccabees. The Old Testament canon was closed way before the Alexandria's ADDED those books.
That has been entirely debunked. Rabbi Akiva attempted to create a unified cannon in 130 AD. Even 700 years later we have debate records with Jews rejecting Esther as scripture. The Deuterocannon is inspired scripture and quoted in the New Testament and by the first 3 centuries of Christians.
Which cannon or tradition are you referring to as Closed?
Do you realize the deuterocanonical books were in all Bibles until the mid-19th century?
@@alanhales6369 the closing of the OT canon before Alexandria is false.
Your protestant forefathers had it in their bible. Also, using sola scriptura, tell me what the Feast of Dedication is and why in the winter in John 10:22.