Second,if prayers for the dead were understood by early Jews and Christians to be efficacious on behalf of the deceased, there are serious ramifications for this. For example, it opens up the theoretical possibility for an intermediary status such as purgatory after dead.
The Passage in Question. Here is what 2 Macc 12:43-45 says about how Judas Maccabeus responded to slain soldiers of his that died with idolatrous amulets on their persons:
He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.
The embolden is an obvious qualification. So, being that it would have been foolish to pray for the dead if there would not be a resurrection, it was a holy and pious thought that the resurrection was is in view when he made the prayer.
The glaringly obvious point is that it is the belief in the resurrection is being extolled, not the act of praying to the dead itself. This is clearly what the author is saying. Perhaps Augustine or Calvin disagrees, but to disagree one must read into the passage ideas that are not there. What the passage says in the above is rather simple.
Proving out the above via two examples. I have noticed that simple things may allude us when we, for whatever reason, want to disagree about something. So, how can I help clear the air so to say?
…By changing the focus of the passage to an action we would all condemn. While the act of praying for the dead are good, or bad, depending upon your theological persuasion, I think I devised two examples that encompass actions that we acknowledge to be bad–serving head cheese and abusive discipline.
It is my hope that the following two examples I cooked up faithfully maintain the wording and flow of thought of 2 Maccabees. I believe the examples make clear to the reader that the action in the passage is not what is not being approved of, but rather, the rationale for committing the action. Identical wording with the original is preserved in bold.
- The Act of Buying Headcheese for Hungry Soldiers:
He also took up a collection among all the soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to the store to buy headcheese for everyone to eat. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the soldiers’ hunger. For if he were not expecting that those soldiers were hungry, it would have been superfluous and foolish to buy so much headcheese. But if he was concerned about the soldiers’ hunger, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he bought headcheese for the soldiers, so that they might be less hungry.
In the above, it is obvious with only minor changes in wording that the act of buying headcheese might not even be good, but rather the thoughtfulness pertaining to the soldiers’ if the headcheese was specifically bought for that purpose.
2. The Act of Severe Belting for the Sake of Discipline:
George Washington then belted his son tenaciously so that the boy would never again be late to school. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the boy’s discipline. For if he were not expecting that belting would successfully discipline the boy, it would have been superfluous and foolish to beat the lad so tenaciously. But if he was looking to the splendid reward of good discipline that is laid up for boys that are given corporal punishment, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he belted the boy, so that he might be delivered from his lack of discipline.
Is the above an endorsement of belting or discipline in general? Of course not. Rather, it reads like a careful apology for a revered man, George Washington, committing a shameful act for supposedly good purpose.
Conclusion. Being that language should be understood in a consistent way, it is obvious that the author of Maccabees was to some degree uneasy with the actual prayer, just as much as I’d be uneasy with severe belting or feeding people headcheese. Yet, we can agree that the passages wholeheartedly agreed with the intention of the otherwise questionable act. In the above two examples, one obviously more extreme than the next, we can see this is obviously the conclusion the reader must draw from the construction of the passage’s wording.
2nd Macabees supports the idea that a sacrifice can be retroactive for the dead (as Jesus’ sacrifice can save Adam and Eve). So a Macabean general makes a sacrifice for his dead soldiers….I don’t see how anyone ever thought this supports purgatory rather than the obvious, that it supports the ability of Jesus’ sacrifice to go back in time and atone for the sins of people who died before he was even born. And this proves the tossing out of these books was a bad move based on false premises, total misinterpretations, and quite frankly, lies. These books never supported purgatory, and the only reason so many people think they don’t belong in the Bible is they’ve been lied to and brainwashed into thinking they do!
In other words, it amazes how how the rejection party always treats this as “praying for the dead” ignoring the statement “He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a [b]sin offering[/b]” and “Therefore he made atonement for the dead” … this is more about OT sacrifices having retro-active atonement power than any sort of “praying for the dead.” And quite frankly, I’m not aware of an OT passage that specifically says sacrifices have retro-active power, aside from 2nd Macabees, meaning the rejection of 2nd Macabees puts the retro-active power of Jesus’ sacrifice in jeopardy from the sola scriptura point of view (like from the perspective of someone playing Jews’ Advocate demanding that in order to prove Jesus’ sacrifice can atone for the sins of the dead, like Abraham and Moses, we must provide an OT passage showing that sacrifice can make retro-active atonement for the dead…..the only passage I could think of to prove that from the OT is in fact this one….so its too bad for the rejectors that its not in their OT).
READ Deuteronomio 30:15-18 in hebrew
REDEMPTION AND SALVATION IN THE BOOK OF TOBIT Fr. John Peck
El Libro de Tobit (en griego: Τωβίθ o Τωβίτ, Tōbíth o Tōbít; en hebreo: טובי, Tobí ‘bondadoso mío’), también llamado Libro de Tobías (en latín: Tobias; en hebreo: טוביה, Tobyah, ‘Yahveh es bondadoso’),[1] es una antigua obra literaria hebrea incluida en la Septuaginta, comúnmente aceptada por las comunidades judías de la Diáspora, pero luego considerada como un texto apócrifo por el judaísmo rabínico, el judaísmo caraíta, el judaísmo mesiánico y por los cristianos protestantes. Sin embargo, este libro es aceptado como canónico por los católicos, ortodoxos y ortodoxos orientales.
No está claro quién es el autor de Tobit; apenas que se trataba de un judío versado en la historia y en la ciencia de Dios y que posiblemente haya vivido en tiempos de la Diáspora. La fecha y el lugar de composición son dudosos: algunos afirman que fue escrito en Egipto entre los siglos IV y III a. C.:[2]
- Véase:Moore, Carey A. (1996) Tobit, Anchor Bible 40A, New York. ISBN 0-385-18913-3Fitzmyer, Joseph A. (2002) Tobit, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin. ISBN 3-11-017574-6
- ↑ Saltar a:a b Villanueva, Marciano (1971) “Los libros de Tobías, Judit, Ester”; Biblia de Jerusalén: 499-501. Desclée de Broewer: Bilbao.
Sent by God, the Archangel Raphael appears, and posing as a distant relative, agrees to take Tobias to find a wife. He takes him to a woman who has been married seven times, but on the wedding night of each marriage, a powerful demon appears and kills the groom, leaving the new bride a virgin maid. No one will marry her now, and it’s not hard to understand why. Tobias arrives, and bravely announces that he will marry her. When the demon appears, Tobias forces the demon to flee, and takes her back home. Raphael dramatically reveals himself as an angelic visitor, and they live happily ever after. Whew. That’s the condensed version. It’s a fun read, though, so please don’t take my word for it.
“Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” (Matt. 22:25-28)
https://orthochristian.com/87281.html
The Synod of Hippo refers to the synod of 393 which was hosted in Hippo Regius in northern Africa during the early Christian Church. Additional synods were held in 394, 397, 401 and 426. Some were attended by Augustine of Hippo.
The synod of 393 is best known for two distinct acts. First, for the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a Christian Biblical canon that corresponds closely to the modern Catholic canon while falling short of the Eastern Orthodox canon. The canon list approved at Hippo included six books later classed by Catholics as deuterocanonical books and by Protestants as Apocrypha; but also included, as ‘two books of Ezra’, the Old Latin books First Ezra and Second Ezra, of which only the latter would subsequently be found in the Catholic canon.[1] The canon list was later approved at the Council of Carthage (397) pending ratification by the “Church across the sea”, that is, the See of Rome.[2] Previous councils had approved similar, but slightly different, canons.
The council also reaffirmed the apostolic origin of the requirement of clerical continence and reasserted it as a requirement for all the ordained, in addition requiring that all members of a person’s household must be Christian before that person can be ordained.[3][4] Rules regarding clerical succession were also clarified at the synod,[5] as well as certain liturgical considerations.[6]
The canonical scriptures are listed in Canon xxxvi as follows:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, The Judges, Ruth, Kings iv books, The Chronicles ii books, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the Twelve Books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra ii books, Maccabees ii books.
Of the New Testament:
The Gospels iv books, Acts of the Apostles i book, Epistles of Paul xiv, Epistles of Peter, the Apostle ii, Epistles of John the Apostle iii, Epistles of James the Apostle i, one of Epistle of Jude the Apostle, Revelation of John, i.[7]
The “five books of Solomon”, according to Augustine, were Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus.[8]
In the De doctrina christiana, Augustine explains the relation between the two books of Ezra/Esdras and its separation with the Chronicles (partly included in the Septuagint‘s 1 Esdras): “… and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles.”[9]
- Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice (2000). “Les livres d’Esdras et leur numérotation dans l’histoire du canon de la Bible latin” [The books of Ezra and their numbering in the history of the Latin Bible canon]. Revue Bénédictine (in French). 110 (1–2): 5–26. doi:10.1484/J.RB.5.100750.
- ^ Francis, Havey (1907), “African Synods”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 1 March 2013
- ^ Schaff, Philip; Wace, Henry, “Cannon XXXVI”, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, vol. XIV, Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, retrieved 1 March 2013
- ^ Schrader, Charles (October 1936), “The Historical Development of the Papal Monarchy”, The Catholic Historical Review, Catholic University of America Press, 22 (3): 259–282, ISSN 0008-8080, JSTOR 25013503
- ^ Beaver, R. Pierce (June 1936), “The Organization of the Church of Africa on the Eve of the Vandal Invasion”, Church History, Cambridge University Press, 5 (2): 168–181, doi:10.2307/3160527, ISSN 0009-6407, JSTOR 3160527
- ^ Shepherd, Massey Jr. (1961), “The Formation and Influence of Antiochene Liturgy”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Dumbarton Oaks, 15: 23+25–44, doi:10.2307/1291174, ISSN 0070-7546, JSTOR 1291174
- ^ “Canon XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)”, The Canons of the 217 Blessed Fathers who assembled at Carthage, Christian Classics Ethereal Library
- ^ “The Third Council of Carthage on the Canon of Scripture”.
- ^ Augustine of Hippo. On Christian Doctrine. Book II, Chapter 8.
trent canon Old Testament
Of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.[5]
New Testament
Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle [ 1, 2, 3 ], one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.[5]
[5]“Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent”. Bible-researcher.com. Retrieved 7 January 2015.
Joseph on hebrew canon
The relevant quotation is as follows:
“For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine [ . . . ] It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.” (Against Apion 1: 38, 41)
[According to some to] Appeal to Against Apion is still highly problematic:
- Even if Josephus believed that literary prophecy had ceased, we have a written (literary) prophecy in Wisdom 2: 12, 20 which speaks of the death of the son of God. With this, we can rightfully shrug and say that Josephus is wrong. (See: Protestant Claim: “The ‘apocrypha’ contains no prophecy”)
- Protestants assume too much by using his statement to conclude that the Jewish canon was closed. James Charlesworth points out that “there is no closed canon during the time of Hillel, Jesus, Johanan ben Zakkai, Josephus or Akiba.” (Evan and Tov, page 64). Timothy Lim estimates the closure of the Jewish canon between 150 and 250 A.D. (Lim, page 180). If Josephus (circa 90 A.D.) thought the canon had been closed during the time of Artaxerxes, he was certainly not speaking for Judaism as a whole.
- It is of note that Josephus wrote Against Apion in 97 A.D., after the completion of the books that would make up the New Testament. Yet the list of twenty-two books he mentions which Protestants love to cite makes no room for the New Testament. Now, why is that? Because Josephus rejected Jesus; he was an unbeliever. If we are to submit to the religious authority of unbelievers, there is no point in being Christians.
https://dapacemdomineonline.wordpress.com/2020/04/02/the-protestant-canon-josephus-still-dont-work/
Trent Horn:
Well first, before we continue on with Josephus, I’ll just say this. Some Jews rejected the deuterocanonical books of scripture, and some Jews rejected some of the protocanonical books of scripture, and some Jews accepted the deuterocanonical books of scripture. Some. In the time of Jesus, it’s more appropriate to talk about Judaisms rather than Judaism itself. There were marked differences between different Jewish schools of thought and even within particular Jewish schools of thought. Even among the Pharisees, there were disputes among the followers of Shammai and the followers of Hillel, these two different rabbis. But let’s jump and hear what he says about Josephus.
Allen Parr:
Scripture. A very helpful quote is from a man by the name of Josephus, who was a Jewish historian, who wrote around 100 AD. And he clearly affirmed that there were certain books that the Jews accepted and believed as part of the Old Testament canon of scripture. Notice he says here, “For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us disagreeing from and contradicting one another as the Greeks have.” So he’s saying, “Hey, we don’t have a whole bunch of books that we think are considered inspired by God, but only 22 books.” Now you may be-
Trent Horn:
–
And so how do we know that he does this? Well first, trying to say that the Jews never disagreed about any of the books of scripture that we only have the 20, where is it? We have 22 books and we all agree on this. Well, that’s just not the case. You had the Samaritans who worshiped on Mount Gerizim, and the Sadducees who believed in the Pentateuch. The Samaritans may have believed in some of the prophets, but the Sadducees seem to, the members of the priestly class, they only believed in the first five books, the Pentateuch. You had the Pharisees whose canon was similar to the Protestant Old Testament canon, but may have been different. It may not have included the book of Esther, for example. Then you had the Essenes, the Jewish Hasidics. John the Baptist may have belonged to them. And their canon included some of the deuterocanonical books because we found the deuterocanonical books among the Dead Sea Scrolls. We’ll talk about that a little bit later.
https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/when-did-the-old-testament-end
Thoughts on the Church’s Old Testament Canon February 15, 2012 https://stpaulcenter.com/thoughts-on-the-churchs-old-testament-canon/
What Bible Did the Sadducees Use? by Joe Heschmeyer https://shamelesspopery.com/what-bible-did-the-sadducees-use/
Sharing is caringFacebookX / TwitterLinkedInWhatsAppTelegramRedditEmail3624 words · 155 views