{"id":8867,"date":"2023-09-07T15:59:58","date_gmt":"2023-09-07T20:59:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/?p=8867"},"modified":"2023-09-07T16:45:20","modified_gmt":"2023-09-07T21:45:20","slug":"does-2-maccabees-approve-of-prayers-for-the-dead","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/2023\/09\/07\/does-2-maccabees-approve-of-prayers-for-the-dead\/","title":{"rendered":"Does 2 Maccabees Approve of Prayers for the Dead?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Date: November 10, 2016<\/a> Author: Craig Truglia<\/a> ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY<\/a> “Fight to the death for the truth and the Lord God will fight for you.” (Sir 4:28)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Calvin thought 2 Maccabees contained a passage that approved of prayers for the dead. Augustine thought the same. The whole Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church agrees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What do you think? Chances are, if you are a Protestant, you never read the passage in question so you don\u2019t have an opinion on it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ed: This article was made when I was a Protestant and upon greater learning and reflection my thoughts may have evolved.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not in the Bible, so it is not important<\/strong>,\u201d you say. Without getting into Canonical disputes, a proper interpretation of 2 Maccabees is important for two reasons:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, it is a valid historical question whether or not contemporary Jews practiced intercessory prayers on behalf of the dead. If so, then the early church\u2019s continuance of the practice may be indicative of the practice always being accepted among the people of God from a time preceding the coming of Christ into the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Passage in Question<\/strong>. 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/sup>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<\/strong> 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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The glaringly obvious point is that it is the belief in the resurrection is being extolled, not<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proving out the above via two examples<\/strong>. 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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026By 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\u2013serving head cheese and abusive discipline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. The Act of Buying Headcheese for Hungry Soldiers:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    He also took up a collection among all the soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent<\/em><\/strong> to the store to buy headcheese for everyone to eat<\/em>. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the<\/em><\/strong> <\/em>soldiers\u2019 hunger. For if he were not expecting that those<\/strong> <\/em>soldiers were hungry<\/em>, it would have been superfluous and foolish <\/em><\/strong>to buy so much headcheese<\/em>. But if he was <\/em><\/strong>concerned <\/em>about the<\/em> soldiers\u2019 hunger<\/em>, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he <\/em><\/strong>bought headcheese for the soldiers<\/em>, so that they might be <\/em><\/strong>less hungry<\/em>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2019 if <\/strong>the headcheese was specifically bought for that purpose<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    2. The Act of Severe Belting for the Sake of Discipline:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    George Washington then belted his son tenaciously so that the boy would never again be late to school<\/em>.<\/strong> In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the<\/em><\/strong> boy\u2019s discipline. For if he were not expecting that<\/strong> belting would successfully discipline the boy<\/em>, it would have been superfluous and foolish <\/em><\/strong>to beat the lad so tenaciously<\/em>. But if he was looking to the splendid reward<\/em><\/strong> of good discipline that<\/em> is laid up <\/em><\/strong>for boys that are given corporal punishment<\/em>, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he <\/em><\/strong>belted the boy<\/em>, so that <\/em><\/strong>he<\/em> might be <\/em><\/strong>delivered from his<\/strong> lack of discipline<\/em>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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<\/em> good purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Conclusion<\/strong>. Being that language should<\/em> 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\u2019d 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\u2019s wording.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/orthodoxchristiantheology.com\/2016\/11\/10\/does-2-maccabees-approve-of-prayers-for-the-dead-no\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    davidbrainerd2<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    2nd Macabees supports the idea that a sacrifice can be retroactive for the dead (as Jesus\u2019 sacrifice can save Adam and Eve). So a Macabean general makes a sacrifice for his dead soldiers\u2026.I don\u2019t see how anyone ever thought this supports purgatory rather than the obvious, that it supports the ability of Jesus\u2019 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\u2019t belong in the Bible is they\u2019ve been lied to and brainwashed into thinking they do!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    davidbrainerd2<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In other words, it amazes how how the rejection party always treats this as \u201cpraying for the dead\u201d ignoring the statement \u201cHe 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]\u201d and \u201cTherefore he made atonement<\/strong> for the dead\u201d \u2026 this is more about OT sacrifices having retro-active atonement power than any sort of \u201cpraying for the dead.\u201d And quite frankly, I\u2019m 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\u2019 sacrifice in jeopardy from the sola scriptura point of view (like from the perspective of someone playing Jews\u2019 Advocate demanding that in order to prove Jesus\u2019 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\u2026..the only passage I could think of to prove that from the OT is in fact this one\u2026.so its too bad for the rejectors that its not in their OT).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    READ Deuteronomio 30:15-18 in hebrew<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    REDEMPTION AND SALVATION IN THE BOOK OF TOBIT Fr. John Peck<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    El Libro de Tobit<\/strong> (en griego<\/a>: \u03a4\u03c9\u03b2\u03af\u03b8 o \u03a4\u03c9\u03b2\u03af\u03c4, T\u014db\u00edth<\/em> o T\u014db\u00edt<\/em>; en hebreo<\/a>: \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u200e, Tob\u00ed<\/em> \u2018bondadoso m\u00edo\u2019), tambi\u00e9n llamado Libro de Tob\u00edas<\/strong> (en lat\u00edn<\/a>: Tobias<\/em>; en hebreo<\/a>: \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4\u200e, Tobyah<\/em>, \u2018Yahveh es bondadoso\u2019),[1]<\/a><\/sup>\u200b es una antigua obra literaria hebrea<\/a> incluida en la Septuaginta<\/a>, com\u00fanmente aceptada por las comunidades jud\u00edas<\/a> de la Di\u00e1spora<\/a>, pero luego considerada como un texto ap\u00f3crifo<\/a> por el juda\u00edsmo rab\u00ednico<\/a>, el juda\u00edsmo cara\u00edta<\/a>, el juda\u00edsmo mesi\u00e1nico<\/a> y por los cristianos protestantes<\/a>. Sin embargo, este libro es aceptado como can\u00f3nico por los cat\u00f3licos<\/a>, ortodoxos<\/a> y ortodoxos orientales<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    No est\u00e1 claro qui\u00e9n es el autor de Tobit; apenas que se trataba de un jud\u00edo versado en la historia y en la ciencia de Dios<\/a> y que posiblemente haya vivido en tiempos de la Di\u00e1spora<\/a>. La fecha y el lugar de composici\u00f3n son dudosos: algunos afirman que fue escrito en Egipto<\/a> entre los siglos IV<\/a> y III a. C.<\/a>:[2]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. V\u00e9ase:Moore, Carey A. (1996) Tobit<\/em>, Anchor Bible 40A, New York. ISBN 0-385-18913-3<\/a>Fitzmyer, Joseph A. (2002) Tobit<\/em>, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin. ISBN 3-11-017574-6<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. \u2191 Saltar a:a<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> b<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> Villanueva, Marciano (1971) “Los libros de Tob\u00edas, Judit, Ester”; Biblia de Jerusal\u00e9n<\/em>: 499-501. Descl\u00e9e de Broewer: Bilbao.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      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\u2019s 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\u2019s the condensed version. It\u2019s a fun read, though, so please don\u2019t take my word for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \u201cNow 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?\u201d<\/em> (Matt. 22:25-28)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      https:\/\/orthochristian.com\/87281.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The Synod of Hippo<\/strong> refers to the synod<\/a> of 393 which was hosted in Hippo Regius<\/a> in northern Africa<\/a> during the early Christian Church<\/a>. Additional synods were held in 394, 397, 401 and 426. Some were attended by Augustine of Hippo<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      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<\/a> that corresponds closely to the modern Catholic<\/a> canon while falling short of the Eastern Orthodox<\/a> canon<\/a>. The canon list approved at Hippo included six books later classed by Catholics as deuterocanonical books<\/a> and by Protestants as Apocrypha<\/a>; but also included, as ‘two books of Ezra’, the Old Latin<\/a> books First Ezra<\/a> and Second Ezra<\/a>, of which only the latter would subsequently be found in the Catholic canon.[1]<\/a><\/sup> The canon list was later approved at the Council of Carthage (397)<\/a> pending ratification by the “Church across the sea”, that is, the See of Rome<\/a>.[2]<\/a><\/sup> Previous councils had approved similar, but slightly different, canons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The council also reaffirmed the apostolic origin of the requirement of clerical continence<\/a> 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]<\/a>[4]<\/a><\/sup> Rules regarding clerical succession were also clarified at the synod,[5]<\/a><\/sup> as well as certain liturgical considerations.[6]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The canonical scriptures are listed in Canon xxxvi as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n

      Genesis<\/a>, Exodus<\/a>, Leviticus<\/a>, Numbers<\/a>, Deuteronomy<\/a>, Joshua the son of Nun<\/a>, The Judges<\/a>, Ruth<\/a>, Kings<\/a> iv books, The Chronicles<\/a> ii books, Job<\/a>, the Psalter<\/a>, five books of Solomon<\/a>, the Twelve Books of the Prophets<\/a>, Isaiah<\/a>, Jeremiah<\/a>, Ezechiel<\/a>, Daniel<\/a>, Tobit<\/a>, Judith<\/a>, Esther<\/a>, Ezra<\/a> ii books, Maccabees<\/a> ii books.
      Of the New Testament:
      The Gospels<\/a> iv books, Acts of the Apostles<\/a> i book, Epistles of Paul<\/a> xiv, Epistles of Peter, the Apostle<\/a> ii, Epistles of John the Apostle<\/a> iii, Epistles of James the Apostle<\/a> i, one of Epistle of Jude<\/a> the Apostle, Revelation of John<\/a>, i.[7]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

      The “five books of Solomon”, according to Augustine, were Proverbs<\/a>, Ecclesiastes<\/a>, Song of Songs<\/a>, Wisdom of Solomon<\/a>, and Ecclesiasticus<\/a>.[8]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      In the De doctrina christiana<\/a><\/em>, Augustine explains the relation between the two books of Ezra\/Esdras<\/a> and its separation with the Chronicles (partly included in the Septuagint<\/a>‘s 1 Esdras<\/a>): “… and the two of Ezra<\/a>, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings<\/a> and Chronicles<\/a>.”[9]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      1. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice (2000). “Les livres d’Esdras et leur num\u00e9rotation 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 B\u00e9n\u00e9dictine<\/em> (in French). 110<\/strong> (1\u20132): 5\u201326. doi<\/a>:10.1484\/J.RB.5.100750<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      2. ^<\/a><\/strong> Francis, Havey (1907), “African Synods”, The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em><\/a>, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 1 March 2013<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      3. ^<\/a><\/strong> Schaff, Philip<\/a>; Wace, Henry<\/a>, “Cannon XXXVI”<\/a>, The Seven Ecumenical Councils<\/em>, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, vol. XIV, Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, retrieved 1 March 2013<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      4. ^<\/a><\/strong> Schrader, Charles (October 1936), “The Historical Development of the Papal Monarchy”, The Catholic Historical Review<\/em>, Catholic University of America Press<\/a>, 22<\/strong> (3): 259\u2013282, ISSN<\/a> 0008-8080<\/a>, JSTOR<\/a> 25013503<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
      5. ^<\/a><\/strong> Beaver, R. Pierce (June 1936), “The Organization of the Church of Africa on the Eve of the Vandal Invasion”, Church History<\/em>, Cambridge University Press<\/a>, 5<\/strong> (2): 168\u2013181, doi<\/a>:10.2307\/3160527<\/a>, ISSN<\/a> 0009-6407<\/a>, JSTOR<\/a> 3160527<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
      6. ^<\/a><\/strong> Shepherd, Massey Jr. (1961), “The Formation and Influence of Antiochene Liturgy”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers<\/em>, Dumbarton Oaks, 15<\/strong>: 23+25\u201344, doi<\/a>:10.2307\/1291174<\/a>, ISSN<\/a> 0070-7546<\/a>, JSTOR<\/a> 1291174<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
      7. ^<\/a><\/strong> “Canon XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)”<\/a>, The Canons of the 217 Blessed Fathers who assembled at Carthage<\/em>, Christian Classics Ethereal Library<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      8. ^<\/a><\/strong> “The Third Council of Carthage on the Canon of Scripture”<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      9. ^<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0Augustine of Hippo.\u00a0On Christian Doctrine<\/em>. Book II, Chapter 8.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        trent canon Old Testament<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n

        Of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses<\/a>, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon<\/a>, 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]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

        New Testament<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n

        Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew<\/a>, Mark<\/a>, Luke<\/a>, and John<\/a>; the Acts of the Apostles<\/a> written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans<\/a>, two<\/a> to the Corinthians<\/a>, (one) to the Galatians<\/a>, to the Ephesians<\/a>, to the Philippians<\/a>, to the Colossians<\/a>, two<\/a> to the Thessalonians<\/a>, two<\/a> to Timothy<\/a>, (one) to Titus<\/a>, to Philemon<\/a>, to the Hebrews<\/a>; two<\/a> of Peter the apostle<\/a>, three of John the apostle [ 1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a> ], one of the apostle James<\/a>, one of Jude the apostle<\/a>, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle<\/a>.[5]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

        [5]<\/sup>“Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent”<\/a>. Bible-researcher.com. Retrieved 7 January 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Joseph on hebrew canon<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The relevant quotation is as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n

        \u201cFor 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.\u201d (Against Apion 1: 38, 41<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

        [According to some to] Appeal to\u00a0Against Apion<\/em>\u00a0is still highly problematic:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        1. Even if Josephus believed that literary prophecy<\/em> had ceased, we have a written (literary) prophecy in Wisdom 2: 12, 20<\/em> 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: \u201cThe \u2018apocrypha\u2019 contains no prophecy\u201d<\/a>)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        2. Protestants assume too much by using his statement to conclude that the Jewish canon was closed. James Charlesworth points out that \u201cthere is no closed canon during the time of Hillel, Jesus, Johanan ben Zakkai, Josephus or Akiba.\u201d<\/em> (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<\/em> speaking for Judaism as a whole.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        3. It is of note that Josephus wrote Against Apion<\/a><\/em> 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?<\/em> 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.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

          https:\/\/dapacemdomineonline.wordpress.com\/2020\/04\/02\/the-protestant-canon-josephus-still-dont-work\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Trent Horn:<\/strong>
          Well first, before we continue on with Josephus, I\u2019ll 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\u2019s 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\u2019s jump and hear what he says about Josephus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Allen Parr:<\/strong>
          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, \u201cFor we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us disagreeing from and contradicting one another as the Greeks have.\u201d So he\u2019s saying, \u201cHey, we don\u2019t have a whole bunch of books that we think are considered inspired by God, but only 22 books.\u201d Now you may be-<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Trent Horn:<\/strong>
          –<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          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\u2019s 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\u2019ll talk about that a little bit later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          https:\/\/www.catholic.com\/audio\/cot\/when-did-the-old-testament-end<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Thoughts on the Church\u2019s Old Testament Canon February 15, 2012 https:\/\/stpaulcenter.com\/thoughts-on-the-churchs-old-testament-canon\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What Bible Did the Sadducees Use? by\u00a0Joe Heschmeyer<\/a> https:\/\/shamelesspopery.com\/what-bible-did-the-sadducees-use\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

          Date: November 10, 2016 Author: Craig Truglia ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY “Fight to the death for the truth and the Lord God will fight for you.” (Sir 4:28) Calvin thought 2 Maccabees contained a passage … Leer m\u00e1s<\/a><\/p>\n