Overview
A history of the Maccabean revolt preserved in the Septuagint and later Catholic/Orthodox canons.
1 Maccabees is a history of the Maccabean revolt from the late second century BCE, preserved in the Septuagint and later received in Catholic and Orthodox canons. It is not in the Tanakh or the Protestant sixty-six. Carthage names 1 and 2 Maccabees among the books to be read in church. These Greek books are not the Ethiopian Meqabyan books, which have their own entries. The historical narrative of the revolt and the canonical status of the book are separate: a church can value the history and still differ on whether the book is Scripture.
Not in the Jewish Tanakh or Protestant 66.
Date & language
- Date
- Late 2nd century BCE (medium confidence)
- Confidence
- medium
- Languages
- Hebrew, Greek
- Traditional authorship
- Not named in the book
- Authorship note
- Author not named; a faithful chronicler of the Maccabean deliverance
Manuscript evidence
א · Codex Sinaiticus
Mid-4th century CE · Greek · Greek 1 Maccabees
Codex Sinaiticus is a Greek parchment pandect from the middle of the fourth century, associated with Saint Catherine’s Monastery on Sinai and now shared by the British Library and partner libraries. Its designation is aleph. After the New Testament it copies the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in full enough form for this dataset to link both writings. That binding is a fact about one great Bible manuscript: early Christian scribes put those books in the same codex as the New Testament. Athanasius, in Festal Letter 39, still treats the Shepherd as a book appointed to be read for instruction and not as part of his canon list. Later twenty-seven-book New Testament lists generally leave both Barnabas and Hermas outside the closed canon. Preservation in Sinaiticus is manuscript evidence. The canonical decision is a separate witness.
A · Codex Alexandrinus
5th century CE · Greek · Greek 1 Maccabees
Codex Alexandrinus is a fifth-century Greek parchment Bible, shelfmark Royal MS 1 D V–VIII in the British Library. Its Old Testament is Septuagint-shaped and includes books that later Western lists call deuterocanonical, among them Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, 1 Esdras, and 1–4 Maccabees, plus the Prayer of Manasseh among the Odes. The New Testament includes Jude. After the biblical books the codex copies 1 Clement. A fifth-century binding shows what one scriptorium copied. It is not the Council of Trent and not the Westminster Confession.
Jewish reception
- mentions
Hebrew canon / Greek-speaking Jews
1 Maccabees is not a book of the Tanakh. Josephus, near the end of the first century, describes twenty-two Jewish books his people trust and sets later writings in a lower rank. The later rabbinic Bible, counted as twenty-four books, likewise leaves 1 Maccabees outside Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim. 1 Maccabees tells Hasmonean history and was likely written in Hebrew, but that Hebrew text is lost. The surviving ancient copies are Greek. It is history of a Jewish dynasty, not a book of the Tanakh. Jewish copying or quotation, where it exists, is reception. It is not the same fact as a place in the Hebrew canon, and it is not a Christian council’s decision.
Early Christian reception
- uses liturgically
Greek and Latin churches
Greek-speaking churches met 1 Maccabees in Septuagint Bibles. Fourth- and fifth-century pandects copy it beside other Old Testament books. Early lists do not all use the same boundary. Athanasius in 367 keeps a shorter Old Testament and still names some of these books as useful to read. Hippo in 393 is reported to have approved a wider list, and Carthage in 397 names several of them among books to be read in church. Carthage names 1 Maccabees among church books. Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus copy the Greek text. Vaticanus does not. Those are early Christian acts. Trent, Luther’s Apocrypha, and Westminster are later and stay on the councils list.
Canon status by tradition
- ProtestantRelated literature
1 Maccabees recounts the Hasmonean revolt. Most Protestant 66-book canons exclude it; some Reformation Bibles printed it in an Apocrypha section.
- CatholicDeuterocanonical
1 Maccabees recounts the Hasmonean revolt. Listed among the Catholic canonical books at Trent (1546).
- OrthodoxCanonical
1 Maccabees recounts the Hasmonean revolt. Received in typical Eastern Orthodox Old Testament collections via the Septuagint tradition.
- EthiopianCanonical
1 Maccabees recounts the Hasmonean revolt. Present in the broader Ethiopian Orthodox biblical collection.
- TanakhNot applicable
Not part of the Jewish Tanakh.
- LXXCanonical
1 Maccabees recounts the Hasmonean revolt. Transmitted in the Greek Old Testament corpus.
- Early ChristianDisputed
1 Maccabees recounts the Hasmonean revolt. Used in some late-antique church lists (for example Carthage 397) while other writers preferred the Hebrew list.
- Second TempleRelated literature
1 Maccabees recounts the Hasmonean revolt. Jewish work circulating beside a later closed rabbinic canon.
Councils & canon lists
c. 390–405 CE · Historical witness · Bethlehem / Latin West
Jerome’s Vulgate prefaces and the Hebrew list
Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus distinguishes books in the Hebrew canon from other church-read writings.
Around 390 to 405, in Bethlehem, Jerome wrote prefaces for his Latin translation that became the Vulgate. The Prologus Galeatus, the helmeted preface to Kings, draws a line between books he finds in the Hebrew canon and other writings the church was reading, the books later often called Apocrypha. Reformation arguments for a shorter Old Testament often appeal to that distinction. Jerome still translated some of the church-read books so Latin Christians could use them. The preface is a church father’s classification, not a council, which is why it sits on the timeline beside the lists rather than inside the Councils & Lists type. Catholic status for the deuterocanonical books is defined later, at Trent.
Why it matters. Later Protestant arguments often appeal to this Hebrew-canon distinction. Jerome still translated some church-read books for Latin use.
Source: Jerome, Prologus Galeatus, distinguishes Hebrew-canon books from other church-read writings later often called Apocrypha.
393 CE · Council · Hippo Regius, North Africa
Council of Hippo
A North African council is reported to have approved a scriptural list that includes books later called deuterocanonical in the West.
In 393 a council at Hippo Regius, in North Africa, is reported to have approved a scriptural list. As later reports give that list, it includes books Western churches afterward call deuterocanonical.
The source for this event says the original acts survive only in later reports, summarized through later Carthage recensions. The date, the place, and the report of a list are the claim this page is willing to make. A free-standing copy of the Hippo minutes is not what the source provides.
Use Hippo as regional conciliar reception in Latin North Africa. Carthage in 397 is the next North African list on this tab, and Trent in 1546 is the much later decree that defines the modern Catholic canon. Each of those has its own source.
Why it matters. Regional conciliar reception, known mainly through later reports—not a universal “removal” or addition by one person.
Follow-up questions
Why does this page say the Council of Hippo is reported?
The source record says the original acts survive only in later reports, summarized through later Carthage recensions. The word “reported” matches that limit. The date and the idea of a list belong to that received tradition.
What does the reported Hippo list include?
Books later called deuterocanonical in the West, inside a scriptural list the council is said to have approved. Because the wording comes through later reports, this page keeps the summary and does not paste a reconstructed decree.
How should I read Hippo next to Carthage and Trent?
Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 are North African reception. Trent in 1546 is the decree that defines the modern Catholic canon, including the deuterocanonical writings received in the Vulgate. Read them as three dated events, each with its own source.
Source: The Council of Hippo (393) is reported to have approved a scriptural list that includes books later called deuterocanonical in the West.
397 CE · Council · Carthage, North Africa
Council of Carthage
The Carthage list includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, and 1–2 Maccabees among books to be read in church.
The Council of Carthage in 397 left a canon in the African canonical collection, the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae. Editions number that canon as 36 or as 47. The curated source names Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, and 1–2 Maccabees among the books to be read in church, together with the books that later form the widely received Protestant sixty-six.
“Read in church” is the council’s category: liturgical and canonical reception in Latin North Africa. Carthage documents that reception in 397. The modern Catholic definition of overlapping books comes later, at Trent on 8 April 1546. Reformation rankings, including Luther’s 1534 Apocrypha section, come later as well. Those further events stay on this tab with their own sources.
Why it matters. Documents Western liturgical/canonical reception of books later disputed in the Reformation.
Follow-up questions
Why do references say canon 36 and canon 47?
The same African list is numbered both ways in the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae. The source title records “canon 36 / 47” so either numbering still points at this 397 Carthage list.
Which books does the Carthage list name beyond the later Protestant sixty-six?
The curated source names Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, and 1–2 Maccabees among the books to be read in church, alongside the books later counted in the Protestant sixty-six.
Does “read in church” mean the same thing as Trent’s canonical list?
Carthage’s phrase is North African reception in 397: these books are to be read in church. Trent’s decree of 8 April 1546 lists the books the Catholic Church receives as canonical, including the deuterocanonical writings received in the Vulgate. The two documents belong to one broad story and remain two different acts.
Source: The 397 Carthage list includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1–2 Maccabees among the books to be read in church, alongside the widely received Protestant 66.
1534 CE · Reformation · Wittenberg
Luther Bible prints a separate Apocrypha
Luther’s 1534 German Bible printed selected Old Testament books in a separate Apocrypha section and said they were useful to read but not equal to Holy Scripture.
Martin Luther’s complete German Bible, printed at Wittenberg in 1534, gathered selected Old Testament writings into a section titled Apocrypha. The preface to that section says the books are useful and good to read, and that they are not held equal to Holy Scripture.
Tobit is one book this dataset ties to that preface. The reception note says Luther printed Tobit in the Apocrypha section and ranked it below Holy Scripture. The 1534 edition is a decision about order and rank inside one vernacular Bible. The writings were already being copied and read: Tobit, for example, is already named on the Carthage list of 397.
Catholic, Orthodox, and Ethiopian collections continued to receive their own overlapping sets. The Westminster Confession of 1646/1647 later states the sixty-six-book canon in English Reformed form and says the Apocrypha are not part of the canon of Scripture. Luther’s printing and Westminster’s confession are two dated steps on this tab.
Why it matters. This is placement and ranking, not a claim that Luther uniquely invented the books or erased them from every Bible on earth.
Follow-up questions
What did Luther’s 1534 preface say about these books?
They are useful and good to read, and they are not held equal to Holy Scripture. The reception note for Tobit uses that same preface: Tobit is printed in the Apocrypha section and ranked below Holy Scripture.
Did these books first appear in the 1534 Bible?
The 1534 Bible places and ranks writings already in circulation. In this dataset Tobit is already named among the books to be read in church at Carthage in 397, and Trent later lists Tobit among the Catholic canonical books.
Which later entry states the Protestant sixty-six as a confession?
The Westminster Confession of 1646/1647, also on this tab. It names the sixty-six books and says the books commonly called Apocrypha are not of divine inspiration and are not part of the canon of Scripture.
Source: Luther’s 1534 Bible printed selected Old Testament books in a separate Apocrypha section, calling them useful to read but not equal to Holy Scripture.
8 April 1546 · Council · Trent
Council of Trent, Session IV
Trent listed the Catholic canonical books, including the deuterocanonical writings received in the Vulgate.
On 8 April 1546, Session IV of the Council of Trent published its decree on the canonical Scriptures. The decree lists the books the Catholic Church receives as canonical, including the deuterocanonical writings already received in the Latin Vulgate. In this dataset, Tobit is one book tied directly to that decree.
Trent answers sixteenth-century disputes about which books count as Scripture. Luther’s 1534 Bible had already printed selected Old Testament books in a separate Apocrypha section and ranked them below Holy Scripture. Trent’s list is the Catholic definition of canonical status for the books it names.
The decree dates that ruling. Composition dates and manuscripts for each writing stay on the writing’s own page. Trent describes the church’s canonical list in 1546, and it leaves the earlier existence of those books to the other evidence on this site.
Why it matters. Defines the modern Catholic canon in response to Reformation disputes. It does not describe a single ancient moment when those books first existed.
Follow-up questions
What did Trent’s Session IV decide?
On 8 April 1546 it listed the books the Catholic Church receives as canonical, including the deuterocanonical writings received in the Vulgate. In this dataset Tobit is one of the books attached to that decree.
What dispute is the decree answering?
Reformation arguments about which books count as Scripture. The Luther Bible of 1534 had already printed selected books in a separate Apocrypha section and said they were useful to read but not equal to Holy Scripture.
Does Session IV tell me when Tobit was written?
The decree dates a Catholic canonical ruling in 1546. Tobit’s composition, language, and manuscripts are earlier evidence, kept on Tobit’s own Canon page rather than inside the conciliar date.
Source: Council of Trent, Session IV (8 April 1546), lists the Catholic canonical books including the deuterocanonical writings received in the Vulgate.
1611 CE · Bible edition · London
King James Bible of 1611 includes an Apocrypha section
The 1611 Authorized Version printed an Apocrypha section between the Old and New Testaments, including Tobit and 2 Esdras among others.
The 1611 Authorized Version, printed in London, placed an Apocrypha section between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The curated source names Tobit and 2 Esdras among the writings in that section.
Printing a section inside the volume is an edition fact: contents and order in one London Bible. Canonical rank is a different kind of claim. About thirty-five years later, the Westminster Confession says the books commonly called Apocrypha are not of divine inspiration and are not part of the canon of Scripture. Many later Protestant printings leave the section out. The 1611 volume still contains it.
Read the 1611 entry beside Luther’s 1534 Apocrypha section and beside Westminster. One prints the books in a separate section, one ranks them below Holy Scripture in German, and one refuses them a place in the Reformed canon. Edition placement and confessional status stay side by side on this tab.
Why it matters. Edition placement is not the same as later Anglican or Reformed confessional statements that deny those books equal canonical status.
Follow-up questions
What is the Apocrypha section in the 1611 Bible?
A printed block between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The source names Tobit and 2 Esdras among the writings included there, and it treats that placement as an edition fact.
Does including those books give them the same status as the sixty-six?
The 1611 fact on this page is edition placement. Equal canonical status is a separate claim. The Westminster Confession later says the Apocrypha are not of divine inspiration and are not part of the canon of Scripture.
Why do many later King James Bibles omit that section?
Later Protestant printing followed confessional statements such as Westminster, which refuse those books a place in the canon. The 1611 volume itself still prints the Apocrypha between the Testaments.
Source: The 1611 King James Bible printed an Apocrypha section between the Old and New Testaments. That placement is an edition fact, not a claim that those books were canonical for every later Anglican confession.
1646/1647 CE · Reformation · Westminster, London
Westminster Confession names the 66-book canon
The Confession lists the 66 books and says the books commonly called Apocrypha are not of divine inspiration and are not part of the canon of Scripture.
The Westminster Assembly’s Confession of Faith, chapter I, was finished in London in 1646/1647. Sections I.2–3 name the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon. They say the books commonly called Apocrypha are not of divine inspiration and are not part of the canon of Scripture.
This is a Reformed confession. It sits on Councils & Lists because it is a dated canon list with a church-document source. It explains why many later Protestant editions leave the Apocrypha out of the printed Bible.
Set it next to the other Protestant-tradition entries on this tab. Luther’s 1534 Bible still printed selected books in a separate section and called them useful to read, while ranking them below Holy Scripture. The 1611 King James Bible still included an Apocrypha section. Westminster’s wording refuses those books a place in the canon.
Why it matters. A defining Reformed statement of the modern Protestant 66. It explains later omission from many Protestant printings.
Follow-up questions
What does Westminster Confession chapter I say about the canon?
It names the sixty-six books and says the books commonly called Apocrypha are not of divine inspiration and are not part of the canon of Scripture. That wording is the source citation for this event.
How is Westminster different from Luther’s 1534 Bible?
Luther printed selected books in a separate Apocrypha section and called them useful to read, while ranking them below Holy Scripture. Westminster refuses them a place in the canon. Both are Protestant-tradition events, and they use different wording.
How is Westminster different from the Council of Trent?
Trent in 1546 defines the Roman Catholic list, including the deuterocanonical writings received in the Vulgate. Westminster in 1646/1647 is a Reformed confession that names the sixty-six and excludes the Apocrypha from the canon of Scripture. They are different bodies and different lists.
Source: Westminster Confession I.2–3 names the 66-book Protestant canon and says the books commonly called Apocrypha are not of divine inspiration and are not part of the canon of Scripture.
Textual relationships
Shared tradition · Hasmonean revolt ↔ Hasmonean revolt
High confidence — strong primary or manuscript support.
1 and 2 Maccabees tell the same revolt in different genres. 2 Maccabees is not a sequel chapter of 1 Maccabees.
Shared tradition · Ge'ez Meqabyan ↔ Greek 1 Maccabees
Low confidence — disputed or tentative.
The similar names do not make these the same book. Ethiopian Meqabyan is not a translation of Greek 1 Maccabees.
Shared tradition · Judith ↔ 1 Maccabees
Low confidence — disputed or tentative.
Judith and 1 Maccabees are both Jewish stories of resistance to a foreign ruler. They are not the same campaign, and Judith is not a Maccabean chronicle.
Timeline
- c. 390–405 CE — Jerome’s Vulgate prefaces and the Hebrew list
- 393 CE — Council of Hippo
- 397 CE — Council of Carthage
- 1534 CE — Luther Bible prints a separate Apocrypha
- 8 April 1546 — Council of Trent, Session IV
- 1611 CE — King James Bible of 1611 includes an Apocrypha section
- 1646/1647 CE — Westminster Confession names the 66-book canon
Sources
- Westminster Confession I.2–3 names the 66-book Protestant canon and says the books commonly called Apocrypha are not of divine inspiration and are not part of the canon of Scripture.
- Council of Trent, Session IV (8 April 1546), lists the Catholic canonical books including the deuterocanonical writings received in the Vulgate.
- Brenton’s public-domain Septuagint translation includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, the Additions, and Maccabees as part of the Greek Old Testament corpus.
- The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church publishes an 81-book list that includes 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Meqabyan books.
- Josephus, Against Apion 1.8, speaks of 22 Jewish books and distinguishes later writings as not equally trusted.
- The 397 Carthage list includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1–2 Maccabees among the books to be read in church, alongside the widely received Protestant 66.
- Codex Sinaiticus preserves a fourth-century Greek Bible and, after the New Testament, includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
- Codex Alexandrinus is a fifth-century Greek Bible. It includes a Septuagint-shaped Old Testament, the New Testament, and 1 Clement.
- Jerome, Prologus Galeatus, distinguishes Hebrew-canon books from other church-read writings later often called Apocrypha.
- The Council of Hippo (393) is reported to have approved a scriptural list that includes books later called deuterocanonical in the West.
- Luther’s 1534 Bible printed selected Old Testament books in a separate Apocrypha section, calling them useful to read but not equal to Holy Scripture.
- The 1611 King James Bible printed an Apocrypha section between the Old and New Testaments. That placement is an edition fact, not a claim that those books were canonical for every later Anglican confession.