This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The photo is a picture of the first verse of the Book of Joshua. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 ( talk) 08:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I Maccabees is a member of Category:Old Testament Apocrypha. Category:Old Testament Apocrypha is a member of Category:Jewish texts. There is therefore no need for I Maccabees to be a member of Category:Jewish texts directly. (It's also a document, and a religious text, but it doesn't need to belong to Category:Documents or Category:Religious texts directly either.) Quadell (talk) 14:01, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
It is offensive to Jews to refer to those books as the "Old Testament" (that is a category for Christians maybe), to Jews and to many others they are known as the Hebrew Bible or the Torah and Tanakh. Thus they can go DIRECTLY into Jewish texts as well. IZAK 07:58, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
JFW: I realize what you say very well. However, since Wiki itself goes out of its way to point out that Jews prefer Hebrew Bible over "Old anything" why not try to bring the point home. As I see it that for the sake of clarity, all articles will have to be re-created so that they make clear the way different religions see things, the problem of course is that Christianity sits on so much Category:Jewish texts yet nevertheless ways must be found to point to the differences so that people know that we are dealing with different religions completely. IZAK 10:20, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no unbiased way to refer to the Old Testament/Tanakh. Christians don't like to use the term "Tanakh", and Jews don't like the term "Old Testament". But it's the same collection of books. There are a couple of different ways of dealing with this problem.
This would all be simpler if there were a NPOV way of refering to the collection, but I don't know of one. I would prefer option 2, but I would be okay with option 1. Is this a debate that should be somewhere else? Perhaps Talk:Categorization? Quadell (talk) 13:42, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
Its rather irrelevant if Jews find it offensive or not. The Christians believe it to be an "Old Testament" and they are perfectly within their rights to call it that if they wish. In the English language that has typically been the name for these books, therefore the term "Old Testament" is generally more in use. Lastly, that is all beyond the point, since Maccabees is not part of the Tanakh in the first place, so there is no reason to use the term Tanakh in the article. 1 & 2 Maccabees are part of the Catholic and Orthodox Bible; Judaism rejects these books. And your point about translations of the Tanakh are, again, irrelevant; one could probably say the same of any translation of any text, including translations of the Gospels from Greek into other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 ( talk) 11:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the text of First Maccabees derives from a Hebrew original, and since the story remains a major part of Jewish history and culture, the appropriate way to begin the article would be by referencing traditional Jewish interpretations and applications of the story. The article should also mention that this text is not included in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), and why. References to subsequent Christian appropriations of the narrative ̶ including even the appellation "Old Testament," which makes an implicit comparison to the so-called "New Testament" ̶ should be scrupulously avoided at the initial stage. Later, to be sure, Christian appropriations of First Maccabees can certainly come in as the discussion of the book's historical influence develops. For a good example of a properly neutral approach to First Maccabees, see Wikipedia's umbrella article on this topic at /info/en/?search=Maccabees, especially the brief section titled "Mention in the Bible." There one finds several references to how First and Second Maccabees have been included in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox versions of the "Old Testament," though omitted from most Protestant Bibles. The reader of that article comes away with a balanced understanding of the role that these texts have assumed in both the Jewish and Christian traditions. Unfortunately, the present article lacks that balance and approaches the story of the Maccabees from a distinctly Christian perspective. Edward Beach ( talk) 04:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Are there any works in print that reproduce Hebrew text with a literal English translation? If not, what are my options for reading 1 and 2 Maccabees in their entirety in a form as close to the original as possible?-- StAkAr Karnak 03:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi all. Nice article. Please place a wiki-ref to Megillat Antiochus as you see fit: (subsection, preceding main header, etc...) - I would have done so but was unsure where was best. Fintor 11:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
In Jewish tradition, his name is Judah Maccabee, not Judah. Is it Judas in Christian tradition? -- Avocado ( talk) 22:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In Maccabees 12:21 it states that the Spartans are descendants of Abraham. I find this very unusual, is there any background into this claim? Didn't the Spartans consider themselves descendants of Herakles? Did the Spartans ever write such a letter, or is this a fabrication in the book of Maccabees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 ( talk) 11:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I corrected the previous introduction for 3 reasons:
Dampinograaf pointed there I'm wrong. This word has been coined by a Catholic converted from judaism, and is recommended by some to be used in academic works in place of "Apocrypha". But, as far as I know, it's not an official Catholic word. I mean I don't think it has ever been used in any official document from the Holy See or an Ecumenical council. And it's not a very good word, except in Luther's perspective where these books would not be part of what he had decided the Word of God should be, but would be worth publishing with the Holy Scripture, as Luther used to do. So I think we should rephrase again this introduction. I'll try something to correct my mistake. But is it so important to write all this in the introduction? -- Henri de Solages ( talk) 10:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The deuterocanonical/apocrypha issue is very confused. To my understanding the Orthodox use the word apocrypha to describe books of the old testament that are not accepted by the Catholics or the protestants (in a sense, false apocrypha), but also books which claim to be a part of the old testament but are not (some apocrypha are not really apocrypha but some really are). Really orthodox wiki explains this better than I can, however it's up to you if Orthodox wiki is a reliable source though (I haven't yet read the page about reliable/unreliable sources). http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apocrypha Fema5 ( talk) 20:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
While I avoided tagging anything, the opening/intro requires lots of references. I think there needs to be a primary citation that confirms some Christian denominations consider the Books of Macabbees canonical, while others do not. My New King James Version, for example, has no Books of Macabbees, but neither does my English-Hebrew Tanakh. So the whole question of whose Bibles contain the Books ought to be referenced.
"So Ptol′emy set out from Egypt, he and Cleopatra his daughter, and came to Ptolema′is in the one hundred and 62nd year. Alexander the king met him, and Ptol′emy gave him Cleopatra his daughter in marriage, and celebrated her wedding at Ptolema′is with great pomp, as kings do." -- (1 Maccabees 10:57-58)
Does anyone know which Cleopatra this would have been, and should her mention be included in the article? -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 04:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Nicanor (Seleucid general). A general under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Dimadick ( talk) 23:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, the two items here should be moved here.
Likewise, unless I am mistaken, the item here should be moved here.
allixpeeke ( talk) 07:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless I am missing something, the article appears to give dates for the events that take place within the composition, but no date range for when researchers think the composition itself was written. When do researchers think this work was composed? allixpeeke ( talk) 21:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1 Maccabees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Furius: Glad to see someone else is paying attention to the page. This isn't a huge deal, but per the edit summary, I'm not sure that the 1922 Church of England lectionary is that relevant. Presumably every "read the full Bible including Apocrypha" reading list will have 1 Maccabees in it somewhere, but that isn't really a fact about 1 Maccabees. I did some minor Googling, and apparently the "real" lectionary is the Sunday readings (as those are what get read by default at Sunday church services), with the weekday readings mostly there for the hardcore Anglicans doing a read-the-full-Bible resolution or the like. Presumably there are lots of such lists out there, across time and Christian denominations. Now, I did comment it out rather than remove it outright, because maybe there'll be a future secondary source discussing the use of 1 Maccabees in the modern CoE, but I'm not really a fan of keeping it solely referenced to the primary source of the Lectionary itself, which merely just lists it without comment. Do you think there are secondary sources out there that cover this in more detail? Happy to try & give 'em a look if so... SnowFire ( talk) 18:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The photo is a picture of the first verse of the Book of Joshua. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 ( talk) 08:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I Maccabees is a member of Category:Old Testament Apocrypha. Category:Old Testament Apocrypha is a member of Category:Jewish texts. There is therefore no need for I Maccabees to be a member of Category:Jewish texts directly. (It's also a document, and a religious text, but it doesn't need to belong to Category:Documents or Category:Religious texts directly either.) Quadell (talk) 14:01, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
It is offensive to Jews to refer to those books as the "Old Testament" (that is a category for Christians maybe), to Jews and to many others they are known as the Hebrew Bible or the Torah and Tanakh. Thus they can go DIRECTLY into Jewish texts as well. IZAK 07:58, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
JFW: I realize what you say very well. However, since Wiki itself goes out of its way to point out that Jews prefer Hebrew Bible over "Old anything" why not try to bring the point home. As I see it that for the sake of clarity, all articles will have to be re-created so that they make clear the way different religions see things, the problem of course is that Christianity sits on so much Category:Jewish texts yet nevertheless ways must be found to point to the differences so that people know that we are dealing with different religions completely. IZAK 10:20, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no unbiased way to refer to the Old Testament/Tanakh. Christians don't like to use the term "Tanakh", and Jews don't like the term "Old Testament". But it's the same collection of books. There are a couple of different ways of dealing with this problem.
This would all be simpler if there were a NPOV way of refering to the collection, but I don't know of one. I would prefer option 2, but I would be okay with option 1. Is this a debate that should be somewhere else? Perhaps Talk:Categorization? Quadell (talk) 13:42, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
Its rather irrelevant if Jews find it offensive or not. The Christians believe it to be an "Old Testament" and they are perfectly within their rights to call it that if they wish. In the English language that has typically been the name for these books, therefore the term "Old Testament" is generally more in use. Lastly, that is all beyond the point, since Maccabees is not part of the Tanakh in the first place, so there is no reason to use the term Tanakh in the article. 1 & 2 Maccabees are part of the Catholic and Orthodox Bible; Judaism rejects these books. And your point about translations of the Tanakh are, again, irrelevant; one could probably say the same of any translation of any text, including translations of the Gospels from Greek into other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 ( talk) 11:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the text of First Maccabees derives from a Hebrew original, and since the story remains a major part of Jewish history and culture, the appropriate way to begin the article would be by referencing traditional Jewish interpretations and applications of the story. The article should also mention that this text is not included in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), and why. References to subsequent Christian appropriations of the narrative ̶ including even the appellation "Old Testament," which makes an implicit comparison to the so-called "New Testament" ̶ should be scrupulously avoided at the initial stage. Later, to be sure, Christian appropriations of First Maccabees can certainly come in as the discussion of the book's historical influence develops. For a good example of a properly neutral approach to First Maccabees, see Wikipedia's umbrella article on this topic at /info/en/?search=Maccabees, especially the brief section titled "Mention in the Bible." There one finds several references to how First and Second Maccabees have been included in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox versions of the "Old Testament," though omitted from most Protestant Bibles. The reader of that article comes away with a balanced understanding of the role that these texts have assumed in both the Jewish and Christian traditions. Unfortunately, the present article lacks that balance and approaches the story of the Maccabees from a distinctly Christian perspective. Edward Beach ( talk) 04:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Are there any works in print that reproduce Hebrew text with a literal English translation? If not, what are my options for reading 1 and 2 Maccabees in their entirety in a form as close to the original as possible?-- StAkAr Karnak 03:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi all. Nice article. Please place a wiki-ref to Megillat Antiochus as you see fit: (subsection, preceding main header, etc...) - I would have done so but was unsure where was best. Fintor 11:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
In Jewish tradition, his name is Judah Maccabee, not Judah. Is it Judas in Christian tradition? -- Avocado ( talk) 22:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In Maccabees 12:21 it states that the Spartans are descendants of Abraham. I find this very unusual, is there any background into this claim? Didn't the Spartans consider themselves descendants of Herakles? Did the Spartans ever write such a letter, or is this a fabrication in the book of Maccabees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 ( talk) 11:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I corrected the previous introduction for 3 reasons:
Dampinograaf pointed there I'm wrong. This word has been coined by a Catholic converted from judaism, and is recommended by some to be used in academic works in place of "Apocrypha". But, as far as I know, it's not an official Catholic word. I mean I don't think it has ever been used in any official document from the Holy See or an Ecumenical council. And it's not a very good word, except in Luther's perspective where these books would not be part of what he had decided the Word of God should be, but would be worth publishing with the Holy Scripture, as Luther used to do. So I think we should rephrase again this introduction. I'll try something to correct my mistake. But is it so important to write all this in the introduction? -- Henri de Solages ( talk) 10:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The deuterocanonical/apocrypha issue is very confused. To my understanding the Orthodox use the word apocrypha to describe books of the old testament that are not accepted by the Catholics or the protestants (in a sense, false apocrypha), but also books which claim to be a part of the old testament but are not (some apocrypha are not really apocrypha but some really are). Really orthodox wiki explains this better than I can, however it's up to you if Orthodox wiki is a reliable source though (I haven't yet read the page about reliable/unreliable sources). http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apocrypha Fema5 ( talk) 20:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
While I avoided tagging anything, the opening/intro requires lots of references. I think there needs to be a primary citation that confirms some Christian denominations consider the Books of Macabbees canonical, while others do not. My New King James Version, for example, has no Books of Macabbees, but neither does my English-Hebrew Tanakh. So the whole question of whose Bibles contain the Books ought to be referenced.
"So Ptol′emy set out from Egypt, he and Cleopatra his daughter, and came to Ptolema′is in the one hundred and 62nd year. Alexander the king met him, and Ptol′emy gave him Cleopatra his daughter in marriage, and celebrated her wedding at Ptolema′is with great pomp, as kings do." -- (1 Maccabees 10:57-58)
Does anyone know which Cleopatra this would have been, and should her mention be included in the article? -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 04:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Nicanor (Seleucid general). A general under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Dimadick ( talk) 23:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, the two items here should be moved here.
Likewise, unless I am mistaken, the item here should be moved here.
allixpeeke ( talk) 07:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless I am missing something, the article appears to give dates for the events that take place within the composition, but no date range for when researchers think the composition itself was written. When do researchers think this work was composed? allixpeeke ( talk) 21:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1 Maccabees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Furius: Glad to see someone else is paying attention to the page. This isn't a huge deal, but per the edit summary, I'm not sure that the 1922 Church of England lectionary is that relevant. Presumably every "read the full Bible including Apocrypha" reading list will have 1 Maccabees in it somewhere, but that isn't really a fact about 1 Maccabees. I did some minor Googling, and apparently the "real" lectionary is the Sunday readings (as those are what get read by default at Sunday church services), with the weekday readings mostly there for the hardcore Anglicans doing a read-the-full-Bible resolution or the like. Presumably there are lots of such lists out there, across time and Christian denominations. Now, I did comment it out rather than remove it outright, because maybe there'll be a future secondary source discussing the use of 1 Maccabees in the modern CoE, but I'm not really a fan of keeping it solely referenced to the primary source of the Lectionary itself, which merely just lists it without comment. Do you think there are secondary sources out there that cover this in more detail? Happy to try & give 'em a look if so... SnowFire ( talk) 18:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)