Timeline for Why isn't the book of the Maccabees part of the Jewish canon?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2016 at 2:02 | comment | added | Shalom | @RandomGuy thank you. From J.SE's standpoint, when we say "the Apocrypha", we intend the material that is contained in the Catholic Old Testament but not in the Jewish Tanakh. | |
| S Dec 5, 2016 at 8:26 | comment | added | RandomGuy | the Protestant Churches about what is or is not Canonical, and therefore disagree about what is or is not Apocryphal. The correct term for the seven books that are part of the Catholic/Orthodox Canon, but were not included in the Protestant Canon, is Deuterocanonical. Ironically enough, however, Deuteronomy is in both Canons. | |
| S Dec 5, 2016 at 8:26 | comment | added | RandomGuy | Apparently I can't comment on the above reply, but wanted to correct: It is part of the Deuterocanon, which are the books excluded from the Protestant Canon at the Reformation, when the Protestant Canon came into existence. The Catholic Canon, which was the only Canon until the Reformation, was solidified at councils dating back to the 4th century, meaning that Maccabees was in the Christian Canon for over 1,000 years before the Protestant Reformation. It is imprecise to say that it is Apocryphal from a Christian definition, because the Catholic and Orthodox Churches disagree with [cont] | |
| Jun 23, 2014 at 23:06 | comment | added | user6591 | I think you are referring to what the chut hamishulosh wrote in the name of his grandfather the chassam soffer, the reason reb yehuda hanasi left chanuka out of mishnayos was because he was upset at the chashmonaim for stealing the malchus from his family. This authenticity of this statement has been questioned by other members of his own family and many have compiled list where rabbi yehuda hannasi does mention chanuka, so the entire premise is faulty. | |
| Dec 31, 2013 at 18:18 | comment | added | Bruce James | Isn't there also a gemara (can't remember where), or perhaps a commentary to a gemara, that states that even if time permitted canonization of the Book of Maccabbees, the rabbis were so critical that the Hasmonians -- all priests -- assumed the kingship, rather than handing it over to Yehudah, that canonization of the book was out of the question? | |
| Dec 8, 2011 at 21:55 | comment | added | Shmuel | In short: It was written too late. | |
| Dec 13, 2009 at 3:19 | history | answered | Shalom | CC BY-SA 2.5 |