The Bible and Protestants.

Then if we can agree that being quoted in the NT does not equal canonicity, then we can also agree that you're not proving anything either. The strongest evidence of how the fledgling church felt about the canonicity of those books is to consult the opinions of those fathers most closely approximated and associated with the apostolic age:


Council of Hippo

"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).


Cyprian of Carthage

"In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . ."’ [Gen. 22:1–2]. . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21–23]" (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).



Council of Rome


"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).



Council of Hippo

"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).



Council of Carthage III

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).



Augustine

"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).


The Letter of Barnabas

"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

 

No, we cant agree on that. If something is quoted as Scripture, then that is proof of it being Scripture. When Jesus says, "It is written thou shalt", Matt. 4:4,7,10. that is proof that wherever that is written is Scripture. Or when Paul says "As it is written", Rom.1:17,then that is proof of it being Scripture.

Augustine, and coucils of Hippo, and Carthage can be explained by Augustine being the one who held to the Apocrypha as Scripture. As he would sway these councils. And these were local councils. Not church wide. And these did accept the Greek canon which inculded the Apocrypha.

Concerning Cyprian, just because some apocryphal books say some things similar or even the exact same thing as Scripture, doesn't make them Scripture. They probably just copied from Scripture.

Yes, Macabees supports Roman doctrine. Which is why they canonized it at the Council of Trent in order to combat the protestants.

I don't see anything that poves the Letter of Barnabas as Scripture.

Quantrill

 

Can you explain why the Orthodox Church also accept them as scripture yet we were not a part of or sanctioned the council of Trent?

 

1.

2.

Here there are 2 totally opposite points answers to the same statement are made.

Which one does represent the catholic POV? From the POV of basic decency and logic it cannot be so that both are true.

You guys have to decide and denounce one of them. Since one of you has been all supportive and another one silently approving the 2nd point you are coming across as speaking with a double tongues, which is a sign of devil as you know.

If you don’t denounce the second point there is no sense in repeating the same answer to 1st point the 4th time, as there is no sense anymore of repeating the same rebuff to the 2nd one. By itself, repeating 2 different answers to 2 different points the 4th and 7th time gives no logical hope to be heard. Knowing that you have the 2nd tip in your tongues requires Quantrills of inspiration and patience to ignore it and still try.

 

We'll wait for the NT proof texts for each of the books of the KJV. According to what you have said, there MUST be, or it isn't Scripture.




.... we'll wait....

 

I would think it is rather you who should explain why in difference from Catholics you include 3, 4 Macabbees. I understand Qantrill has never claimed to be an expert of comparative studies of denominations and his primary task has been to explain why we have not included Maccabees and why it does not make us not true Xns as it has been the claimed by Catholics and you. As well you may want to explain why Russian Orhodox has never been having indulgences, the dogma which greatly contrinuted to the Reformation.

I cannot even think that you may be not a Xn or not a quite good Xnsand somehow have more chance to be rejected by our Father if you don't know or don't even care about answers to these Qs and proofs. I consider such a thought as an antiXn.

 

First as to why the Romans took out books, I would say they are wrong just as the Protestants.

Second anyone that says Protestants are not Christian would be wrong. They are heterodox but they are still Christian. (Same applies to the Roman Catholics)

Third the Russian Orthodox is Orthodox and we agree with their stance and did the same.


As to your final statement can you please clerify becuase it did not make any sense what so ever.

 

Your overreaching. I never said, "it must be or it isn't Scripture". I did say if a passage is addressed as Scripture, then it is proof that the book is Scripture.

Quantrill

 

What a dance....

 

No, just clearing up your misunderstanding.

When the New Testament quotes a passasge from the Old as Scripture, that is proof that the book is Scripture.

If a book of the Old Testament is not quoted in the New, that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't Scripture, but it does lack that proof.

Quantrill

 

If I can prove something found only in one of the deuterocanonicals is referenced as scripture in the New Testament, will you accept the judgement of the Catholic Church on the canon of the OT?

 

and as the Russian Orthodox, “New Rome” which is a lot older than Protestants. Now you have to prove that P-s and the ROC are wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. P-s and the ROC do not have to prove that they are right, but only to raise a reasonable objection. And if you scroll back you’ll see Quantrill and I did.

On this tread and the tread "why I am a catholic" Catholics have been trying to prove that P-s (and RO ) are not real Xns. Now you have to prove that they are wrong, full of, as I have been doing; so the Q is why did you take the opposite position?

The ROC in practically the same way as P-s considers Maccabees + to be NOT inspired by G-d. (When Catholics as they let me know consider the whole Bible to be not inspired by G-d but by the Pope)

When Catholics come here to prove that P-s and Russian Orthodox do not know ~X, but only they, Catholics do, I see satan speaking and I feel like standing against the double tongued. I am asking you why did you post a support for the cursed and how else in your view a Xn should react, - in other words, come again - what are you forgiving me for?.

 

Now I feel like I'm talking to a 5 year old. Sorry if that sounds insulting, but you're deliberately missing the point. If being quoted in the New Testament is required for canonicity, THEN SEVERAL OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS MUST BE THROWN OUT! Sorry for yelling, but how hard is that to understand?

An ignorant statement to the extreme. How is a council validated or invalidated by who is the most persuasive? You've also missed the fact that you pretty much admitted you were wrong in your assertion that the deuterocanonical books weren't added until Trent. Or you didn't miss that fact and you're pulling a fast one to cover it up.

Now you're just guessing? Your recalcitrance knows no bounds. Even when you are refuted with clear evidence, you cling to your error and make sloppy guess work in a weak attempt to buttress your dying argument. You're not a lover of the truth, and that's very disappointing to see in any Christian.

Then what does that say about any other doctrine if we can dismiss it by claiming a sinister agenda behind the inclusion of that book? Hiatus in logic once again!

But nobody is claiming it as scripture. I included this and all the other citations to demonstrate compellingly and irrefutably that the early church considered all 73 of these books to be holy scripture, confirmed by 3 consecutive church councils, the very first councils ever to speak on the subject of forming a biblical canon. I know you hate being wrong, but you are wrong and there's liberty on the other end for you if you can bring yourself to admit it.

But at least you're right about capital punishment.

 

If a book of the Old Testament is not quoted in the New, that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't Scripture, but it does lack that proof.

Quantrill


...the 5th time for the possessed...

 

P.S. I apologize for following the format of ignorance. I understand that you are a Catholic and they are Romans, but I feel that I have to adjust to the format imposed by ignorant. I have been meaning no offense.

 

I think you should just show your evidence.

No. I can't see accepting the Apocrypha at this time when it was rejected by those who had available to them that which was necessary to make that determination.

Quantrill

 

Off hand I would say it had something to do with the Apocrypha being found in the Vulgate translation of the Septuigent. Just a guess.

So, why do they?

Quantrill

 

As Inquisitor showed in another of my quotes, lack of a New Testament quote simply means it lacks that as proof. It doesn't necessarily mean the book isn't inspired Scripture.

Ive always said the Apocrypha were never officially considered Scripture, given canonical status, until the Council of Trent. Their were those who did consider them Scripture, such as Augustine. And a man of his Christian stature would indeed have a tremendous affect on the local councils of Hippo and Carthage. These Chruches in N.Africa were prone to accept the Apocrypha due to the Aprocrypha being found in the Septuigent of the 4th century. They accepted the Greek canon with the Apocrypha as opposed to the Palestinian canon without the Apocrypha.

Well, I consider myself a Christian and seek to understand the truth of God as found in the Bible. Which means if there are other books that are claimed to be the Word of God, and are not found in the Bible, which I use, then I am going to see them as false.

I have liberty where I am.

And, I also think if you look at Roman Catholicism's stand on the Scriptures, you will see they, the Scriptures, take a secondary position as authority in the Church. Indeed, tradition, and the Church itself is the sole interpreter of Scripture for Catholics. Not you. Whereas I have liberty to read and interpret and benefit from my Bible myself, without the postion of the Church.

Quantrill

 

Okay.

That is an interesting admission! Who are "those" who had it available to make that determination? The Christian Church of the time did NOT reject the books--the JEWISH community did. I am Christian and so believe as Christians do. What are you?

 

"...and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

co-equal--not secondary.

This is false. Catholics may interpret, though not in opposition to Apostolic teaching.

 

Heb.11
[1]
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
[2] For by it the men of old received divine approval.
[3] By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.
[4]By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts; he died, but through his faith he is still speaking.
[5] By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.
[6] And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
[7] By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith.
[8]By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go.

[9] By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise.
[10] For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
[11] By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised.
[12] Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
[13]These all died in faith, not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted it from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
[14] For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.
[15] If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return.
[16] But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.
[17]By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son,
[18] of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named."
[19] He considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.
[20] By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau.
[21] By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff.
[22] By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his burial.
[23]By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful; and they were not afraid of the king's edict.
[24] By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter,
[25] choosing rather to share ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin.
[26] He considered abuse suffered for the Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked to the reward.
[27] By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king; for he endured as seeing him who is invisible.
[28] By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the first-born might not touch them.
[29]By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as if on dry land; but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned.
[30] By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days.
[31] By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies.
[32]And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets --
[33] who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
[34] quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.
[35] Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.
[36] Others suffered mocking and scourging, and even chains and imprisonment.
[37] They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated --
[38] of whom the world was not worthy -- wandering over deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
[39]And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised,
[40] since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.




Amid all those stories of OT heroes of faith is a line [35] that refers to a story found ONLY in Maccabees. Paul is OBVIOUSLY referencing the Holy Scriptures and referring to those who are a "cloud of witnesses" learned of through the scriptures. And yet--that story of the women receiving their dead by resurrection” is the only one among them NOT in the Protestant canon of the OT. Paul didn't just stray from referring to OT heroes to throw in some non-scripture story--he was citing SCRIPTURE.

 

2 Maccabees 7
[1]It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh.
[2] One of them, acting as their spokesman, said, "What do you intend to ask and learn from us? For we are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our fathers."(*)
[3]The king fell into a rage, and gave orders that pans and caldrons be heated.
[4] These were heated immediately, and he commanded that the tongue of their spokesman be cut out and that they scalp him and cut off his hands and feet, while the rest of the brothers and the mother looked on.(*)
[5] When he was utterly helpless, the king ordered them to take him to the fire, still breathing, and to fry him in a pan. The smoke from the pan spread widely, but the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying,(*)
[6] "The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us, as Moses declared in his song which bore witness against the people to their faces, when he said, `And he will have compassion on his servants.'"(*)
[7]After the first brother had died in this way, they brought forward the second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and asked him, "Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?"
[8] He replied in the language of his fathers, and said to them, "No." Therefore he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done.(*)
[9] And when he was at his last breath, he said, "You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws."(*)
[10]After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was demanded, he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands,
[11] and said nobly, "I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again."(*)
[12] As a result the king himself and those with him were astonished at the young man's spirit, for he regarded his sufferings as nothing.(*)
[13]When he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same way.
[14] And when he was near death, he said, "One cannot but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!"(*)
[15]Next they brought forward the fifth and maltreated him.
[16] But he looked at the king, and said, "Because you have authority among men, mortal though you are, you do what you please. But do not think that God has forsaken our people.(*)
[17] Keep on, and see how his mighty power will torture you and your descendants!"(*)
[18]After him they brought forward the sixth. And when he was about to die, he said, "Do not deceive yourself in vain. For we are suffering these things on our own account, because of our sins against our own God. Therefore astounding things have happened.
[19] But do not think that you will go unpunished for having tried to fight against God!"(*)
[20]The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord.
[21] She encouraged each of them in the language of their fathers. Filled with a noble spirit, she fired her woman's reasoning with a man's courage, and said to them,(*)
[22] "I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you.(*)
[23] Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws."(*)
[24]Antiochus felt that he was being treated with contempt, and he was suspicious of her reproachful tone. The youngest brother being still alive, Antiochus not only appealed to him in words, but promised with oaths that he would make him rich and enviable if he would turn from the ways of his fathers, and that he would take him for his friend and entrust him with public affairs.
[25] Since the young man would not listen to him at all, the king called the mother to him and urged her to advise the youth to save himself.(*)
[26] After much urging on his part, she undertook to persuade her son.(*)
[27] But, leaning close to him, she spoke in their native tongue as follows, deriding the cruel tyrant: "My son, have pity on me. I carried you nine months in my womb, and nursed you for three years, and have reared you and brought you up to this point in your life, and have taken care of you.(*)
[28] I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.(*)
[29] Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers."(*)
[30]While she was still speaking, the young man said, "What are you waiting for? I will not obey the king's command, but I obey the command of the law that was given to our fathers through Moses.
[31]But you, who have contrived all sorts of evil against the Hebrews, will certainly not escape the hands of God.(*)
[32] For we are suffering because of our own sins.(*)
[33] And if our living Lord is angry for a little while, to rebuke and discipline us, he will again be reconciled with his own servants.(*)
[34] But you, unholy wretch, you most defiled of all men, do not be elated in vain and puffed up by uncertain hopes, when you raise your hand against the children of heaven.(*)
[35] You have not yet escaped the judgment of the almighty, all-seeing God.(*)
[36] For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of everflowing life under God's covenant; but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance.(*)
[37] I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our fathers, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by afflictions and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God,(*)
[38] and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty which has justly fallen on our whole nation."(*)
[39]The king fell into a rage, and handled him worse than the others, being exasperated at his scorn.
[40] So he died in his integrity, putting his whole trust in the Lord.(*)
[41]Last of all, the mother died, after her sons.




Admit it. There are whole books MISSING from your Bible. In Revelation 22 it says,
[18]I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
[19] and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.



Not knowing it was done is one thing, struggling with the truth is another thing, but rejecting the truth is a whole different ball game.

 

You just insulted Qantrill in the previous post http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/203499-bible-protestants-35.html#post4392442, as this is what you have been doing all the time here, insulting and only proving your ‘’superiority’’ and intellectualism and trying to put another man down and in a corner by all means even if takes to pull most vicious atheists on your side. Now it turns that all over suddenly you have an ace hidden in your sleeve, you have been just forgetting about it.

You may or you may not, it does not matter, because you have already proven all you can prove. Quantrill and I and many other people of all beliefs rather will accept that there is no G-d than accept judgement of your company, Margot, Iolo, kmisho, Allevil… etc. You have proven that you as well read in the Bible as Iolo, and as well as Iolo you know nothing about Xty, your soul is not there.
No, it is not an ace you have pulled out of your sleeve like a cardsharper, but it does not matter.

Once I had to supplement my income doing artwork. I painted a few icons. I started showing one to an older Catholic lady... she grabbed it and kissed it. I was shocked.... the next second the Holy Spirit told me that she was my sister in Christ. I am not well educated in catholic icon rituals. I see you parading yourself like an icon for others to kiss starting from your avatar, but I see no ~X. Satan knows all letters of all books by heart, he is smarter than Qantrill and I together, but he has no soul of his own, he has to possess others.


May Holy Spirit fall on you and save you.

 

What are you afraid of, Inquisitor? You sound like Jack Chick. No rational person is taking you seriously--you know that, don't you?

 

35] Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.

http://bible.cc/hebrews/11-35.htm

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=18&letter=M

Odd that the 4 books of the Maccabees isn't included.