Does 2 Maccabees belong in the Christian canon?

[Difflugia]

It's been a while since I've tried in earnest, so I thought I'd try to start some discussions about the biblical text. Two other recent threads touched on various Christian canons of Scripture without really going anywhere, so I figured I'd start there.

2 Maccabees is perhaps my favorite deuterocanonical book and is certainly among my favorites within all of Christian Scripture. The Roman Catholic and various Orthodox churches consider it to be Scripture. The question for debate is:

Should all Christians consider 2 Maccabees to be Scripture? Why or why not?

How is 2 Maccabees like or unlike other books in the various canons of Scripture? Does it offer anything that can't be found in other books?

I'll be arguing that 2 Maccabees should be considered Scripture by all Christians.

[Difflugia]

For anyone that hasn't read it or wishes to have a handy, free reference, I suggest the translation I'll be referring to, the World English Bible (WEB). It's based on the English Revised Version of 1894 and is in the public domain, but the English has been modernized a bit (not as much as the other books, though; the Apocrypha seem to have been a bit neglected). If you need software to read the epub format, I recommend Calibre (available for Mac, Linux, and Windows).

The Revised Version with its footnotes (including many translation details) is available as an excellent scan at archive.org, which can be downloaded as a ~90 MB PDF or read online.

The New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) isn't in the public domain, but 2 Maccabees can be downloaded for free as a PDF, as can the other books of the Greek Old Testament.

Unfortunately, my favorite translation, the NRSV, is neither public domain, nor free. Both the NRSV with Apocrypha and NRSV Catholic Edition contain 2 Maccabees. Coincidentally, the Catholic Edition ebook is on sale for $2.99 right now at Amazon, Kobo, and Barnes & Noble (depending on what kind of ereader you have).

[Difflugia]

Without naming names, it seems that variations on the theme of "prove it" keep appearing with no other arguments presented. From now on, I'll be treating those as nothing more than attempts to shut down discussion and either ignoring them or linking to a version of this post as my only response. While I don't set rules around here, I invite others to do the same.

If you have a supportable claim, make it and support it. If you think another's claim is unsupported and you're going to call them out, you should at a minimum be able to present a better supported alternative.

[1213]

...
I'll be arguing that 2 Maccabees should be considered Scripture by all Christians.

Please tell why do you think it should be included? What important thing it has that is not already in the Bible?

[Difflugia]

Please tell why do you think it should be included? What important thing it has that is not already in the Bible?

I'm glad you asked!

In a broad sense, both 1 and 2 Maccabees add important context to the Gospels by giving us a glimpse into Judaism going into and coming out of the Maccabean revolt. The beginning of 2 Maccabees confirms that Nehemiah's Temple then standing in Jerusalem was the properly consecrated seat of God, for within it burned a fire descended from the one sent by God to Solomon in order to consecrate the original Temple built by Solomon. We're given a story of how a minister of the Seleucid king came to take money held in the temple, but God sent angels to beat the minister and protect the Temple. As a backdrop to the Gospel story of Jesus and the cleansing of the Temple, this shows that not only did the Temple truly belong to God, but that it wasn't the first time that God had needed to protect it from overreaching and impious government.

Beginning in chapter 4, then, the author explains to us that the conflict is really about preserving traditional Judaism against an officially sanctioned imposition of Hellenism (4:11-17)

And setting aside the royal ordinances of special favor to the Jews, granted by the means of John the father of Eupolemus, who went on the ambassage to the Romans for friendship and alliance, and seeking to overthrow the lawful modes of life, he brought in new customs forbidden by the law: for he eagerly established a Greek place of exercise [gymnasium] under the citadel itself; and caused the noblest of the young men to wear the Greek cap [petasos]. And thus there was an extreme of hellenization, and an advance of an alien religion, by reason of the exceeding profaneness of Jason, that ungodly man and no high priest; so that the priests had no more any zeal for the services of the altar: but despising the sanctuary, and neglecting the sacrifices, they hastened to enjoy that which was unlawfully provided in the palaestra, after the summons of the discus; making of no account the honors of their fathers, and thinking the glories of the Greeks best of all. By reason whereof sore calamity beset them; and the men whose ways of living they earnestly followed, and to whom they desired to be made like in all things, these became their enemies and punished them. For it is not a light thing to do impiously against the laws of God: but these things the time following shall declare.

Knowledge that this was the leadup to an earlier, divinely sanctioned war that had occurred less than two hundred years previously should have been a clue to the Pharisees of the Gospels that they should listen to a reformer expressing the same grievances.

Now, we have several chapters laying out that, on the one hand, the Jewish people themselves were politically inoffensive and tried to be good subjects to the king, but on the other hand, the king was indifferently instituting all sorts of offensiveness against their Jewishness and against God. The king deserved what he had coming to him, in other words.

Chapter 7 tells us of a family of martyrs. A woman and her sons were tortured and put to death one-by-one as they refused to break God's law by eating a piece of pork.

Anyway, the story can really be seen as an allegory of the same conditions that had again come to pass in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus. There was a ruler that had allowed himself to be corrupted by foreign influence that led him to dishonor the sanctity of the Temple. Whereas Judas Maccabeus would be a political savior, allowing the Jewish people a temporary, earthly respite, Jesus would bring about the final and permanent salvation of Israel.

[1213]

...In a broad sense, both 1 and 2 Maccabees add important context to the Gospels by giving us a glimpse into Judaism going into and coming out of the Maccabean revolt. The beginning of 2 Maccabees confirms that Nehemiah's Temple then standing in Jerusalem was the properly consecrated seat of God, for within it burned a fire descended from the one sent by God to Solomon in order to consecrate the original Temple built by Solomon. We're given a story of how a minister of the Seleucid king came to take money held in the temple, but God sent angels to beat the minister and protect the Temple. As a backdrop to the Gospel story of Jesus and the cleansing of the Temple, this shows that not only did the Temple truly belong to God, but that it wasn't the first time that God had needed to protect it from overreaching and impious government....

Thank you. I think that is interesting, but not crucial information. That is why I understand it is not included in all cases.

[Difflugia]

Thank you. I think that is interesting, but not crucial information. That is why I understand it is not included in all cases.

Do you think there are objective criteria for what information is crucial or is it up to each Christian to decide which books God thought important enough to inspire?

[AgnosticBoy]

Thank you. I think that is interesting, but not crucial information. That is why I understand it is not included in all cases.

Do you think there are objective criteria for what information is crucial or is it up to each Christian to decide which books God thought important enough to inspire?

Does 2 Maccabees add any theological value to the Bible?

At most, 2 Maccabees was excluded by early Protestants because it was not part of the original Hebrew translation of the Bible.

[1213]

Thank you. I think that is interesting, but not crucial information. That is why I understand it is not included in all cases.

Do you think there are objective criteria for what information is crucial or is it up to each Christian to decide which books God thought important enough to inspire?

I mean with crucial information everything that is important to know in Biblical context. And because Bible is mainly about good and right, righteousness, eternal life, everything that makes those more understandable can be crucial. Information that is already in the Bible, or is about something mundane that doesn't increase righteousness, is not very crucial.

[Difflugia]

Does 2 Maccabees add any theological value to the Bible?

If nothing else, chapter 7 offers a perspective on loyalty and piety in the face of persecution and martyrdom that is unique to the Bible.

I mean with crucial information everything that is important to know in Biblical context. And because Bible is mainly about good and right, righteousness, eternal life, everything that makes those more understandable can be crucial. Information that is already in the Bible, or is about something mundane that doesn't increase righteousness, is not very crucial.

By those criteria, 2 Maccabees easily belongs in the canon.