Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 3

Bercot confronts an evangelical suspicion of 1 Maccabees by calling it respected history (even by secular historians), read by early Christians, included in Luther’s Bible and the 1611 KJV “for edification”; what does your reaction to his argument reveal about how you decide what sources you trust in studying God’s people and church history?

Another way to ask: How does your response to Bercot’s defense of 1 Maccabees show what kinds of sources you trust when learning about God’s people and church history?

Direct Answer Bercot’s argument pushes you to ask whether your trust is shaped mainly by inherited labels (like “Apocrypha”) or by evidence—how a source was used historically, what it claims for itself, and how reliable it is as history.

Support from Transcript:

He describes a common evangelical attitude: he “grew up believing that these books were some kind of fairy tales…an aura of evil around them.”
He insists “nothing could be further from the truth,” especially for 1 Maccabees, which he calls “simply an historical book…describing the history of the Jews.”
“Even most secular historians respect 1 Maccabees” as containing “reliable history.”
The book “makes no claim to be inspired…There’s no theology in it. It’s simply history,” so Bercot separates historical value from canon debates.
He notes broad Christian use: “The early Christians read First Maccabees regularly,” Reformers quoted the Apocrypha, Luther included it, and the 1611 KJV included it “for edification and not for theological doctrine.”

Discussion Follow-ups When you evaluate a disputed source, do you ask first, “Is it inspired?” or first, “Is it reliable and historically useful?” How might both questions matter, but in different ways?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 3 of 10