Abstract:
The inclusion of First and Second Maccabees in the biblical canon has been a subject of theological and historical debate. This article examines the interpretative frameworks and scholarly consensus surrounding Daniel’s prophecy, the historical significance of the Maccabean books, and the canonical decisions made by different religious traditions. Through a comprehensive analysis, this paper aims to elucidate the reasons behind the divergent views on the inclusion of these books in the Bible.
Introduction:
The biblical canon has been shaped by complex historical, theological, and cultural factors. First and Second Maccabees, which document the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid Empire and the rededication of the Second Temple, are included in some Christian Bibles but not in others. This article explores whether these books should be included in the Bible by examining their historical context, their relationship to prophetic texts such as the Book of Daniel, and the canonical decisions made by various religious traditions.
Interpretation of Daniel’s Prophecy:
Context of Daniel’s Prophecy:
The Book of Daniel, particularly the prophecy of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24-27, is traditionally interpreted by many Christian scholars as referring to events leading up to and including the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. Notable scholars such as John Goldingay (1989) and Gleason L. Archer Jr. (1974) support this eschatological view, which situates Daniel’s prophecy within the broader narrative of Jewish and early Christian history.
First and Second Maccabees:
First and Second Maccabees provide detailed historical accounts of the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid Empire and the rededication of the Second Temple. Unlike Daniel’s prophecy, these books are primarily historical narratives rather than prophetic texts. According to Jonathan A. Goldstein (1981), these books offer valuable historical insights but do not fulfill the role of prophecy as seen in Daniel.
Historical vs. Prophetic Texts:
Daniel’s Prophecy:
Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy is generally understood within Christian eschatology as pointing towards the arrival of the Messiah and significant events related to Jewish and early Christian history. This interpretation is supported by scholars such as Tremper Longman III (1999), who emphasizes the messianic and apocalyptic dimensions of Daniel’s visions.
First and Second Maccabees:
These books are historical records of the Maccabean Revolt and are not prophetic literature. They describe events that occurred in the 2nd century BC, which is after the time of Daniel’s prophecy. As historical texts, they offer a glimpse into the struggles and triumphs of the Jewish people during this period but do not serve the same theological function as prophetic texts.
Scholarly Consensus:
Scholarly Interpretations:
Most scholars and theologians do not interpret Daniel’s prophecy as referring to the Maccabean period specifically but rather to broader events concerning Israel’s future and the coming of the Messiah. This perspective is echoed by scholars like John J. Collins (1993), who argue that Daniel’s visions encompass a wide range of eschatological themes that transcend the immediate historical context of the Maccabean era.
Historical Context:
The events described in the Maccabean books happened after Daniel's time and were already part of Jewish history when these books were written. This temporal distinction reinforces the classification of First and Second Maccabees as historical rather than prophetic texts.
Canonical Differences:
Jewish Canon (Tanakh):
The Jewish canon, which was established by Jewish scholars and religious leaders, does not include the Deuterocanonical books. These texts were not part of the Hebrew Scriptures, which were the basis for the Old Testament in the Protestant Bible. The Council of Jamnia, around AD 90, is believed to have affirmed the canon of the Hebrew Bible, excluding the Deuterocanonical books (Beckwith, 1985).
Apostolic and Early Church Use:
New Testament References:
The New Testament, written by the apostles and early Christian leaders, frequently quotes from the Old Testament but never directly references the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture. This absence of direct reference is significant in the context of early Christian scriptural interpretation (Metzger, 1987).
Early Church Fathers:
While some early Church Fathers referenced the Deuterocanonical books, the consensus among many early church leaders was to adhere to the Hebrew canon, which did not include these texts. Early Christian writers such as Jerome and Athanasius advocated for a canon that aligned with the Hebrew Scriptures, reflecting a cautious approach to the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books (Kelly, 1975).
Reformation Principles:
Sola Scriptura:
The Protestant Reformation emphasized "sola scriptura" (Scripture alone) and aimed to return to the sources of the faith, which included a return to the Hebrew canon for the Old Testament. Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected the Deuterocanonical books partly because they were not part of the Hebrew Bible and partly due to doctrinal concerns (McGrath, 1993).
Council of Trent Reaction:
The inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books in the Catholic canon was solidified at the Council of Trent (1546) as a reaction to the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers rejected these books partly because they were not part of the Hebrew Bible and were perceived to contain theological elements inconsistent with Protestant doctrine (Oberman, 1994).
Historical and Theological Consistency:
Intertestamental Period:
The Deuterocanonical books were written during the intertestamental period (the time between the Old and New Testaments), which some argue does not align with the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures. This period is seen as a time of historical rather than prophetic significance (Sundberg, 1964).
Theological Concerns:
Some teachings found in the Deuterocanonical books, such as prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:45-46), are viewed as inconsistent with core Protestant theological beliefs. These doctrinal differences have contributed to the exclusion of these books from the Protestant canon (Bruce, 1988).
Conclusion:
The arguments surrounding the inclusion of First and Second Maccabees in the Bible reflect deep historical, theological, and canonical considerations. While these books hold historical and spiritual value, their exclusion from many Christian Bibles is based on adherence to the Hebrew Scriptures, the practices of the early church, and the principles of the Reformation. The divergent views on their inclusion underscore the complex interplay between history, theology, and tradition in the formation of the biblical canon.
References:
- Archer, G. L. Jr. (1974). A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Moody Press.
- Beckwith, R. T. (1985). The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church. SPCK.
- Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture. InterVarsity Press.
- Collins, J. J. (1993). Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Fortress Press.
- Goldingay, J. (1989). Daniel. Word Books.
- Goldstein, J. A. (1981). I Maccabees. Doubleday.
- Kelly, J. N. D. (1975). Early Christian Doctrines. Harper & Row.
- Longman, T. III. (1999). Daniel. Zondervan.
- McGrath, A. E. (1993). Reformation Thought: An Introduction. Blackwell.
- Metzger, B. M. (1987). The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Clarendon Press.
- Oberman, H. A. (1994). The Reformation: Roots and Ramifications. Eerdmans.
- Sundberg, A. C. (1964). The Old Testament of the Early Church. Harvard University Press.
Comments