Little inspiration for Moses in Genesis, none for Luke in either book?

Jonathan Sarfati claims that Maccabees deny being divinely inspired.

If the Bible had actually disclaimed divine inspiration, it would indeed be illogical to defend it. This is one argument that the Apocrypha was not inspired—1 Maccabees 9:27 and 2 Macc. 15:37–39 explicitly disclaim divine inspiration.

Let us pick this apart:

If the Bible had actually disclaimed divine inspiration, it would indeed be illogical to defend it.

As divinely inspired, not as correct history.

I can defend aspects of Mahabharata and nearly all aspects of Iliad and not very much fewer of Odyssey, without claiming that the Muse that Homer invoked (claim of inspiration from a different and false deity) was a true divinity or an alias for God. But as historical, not as divenly inspired and not as inerrant. All of these are, outside human history and in theology very erroneous.

This is one argument that the Apocrypha was not inspired—1 Maccabees 9:27 and 2 Macc. 15:37–39 explicitly disclaim divine inspiration.

Let us look at the actual verses, shall we.

And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel.

But to celebrate the thirteenth day of the month of Adar, called, in the Syrian language, the day before Mardochias' day. So these things being done with relation to Nicanor, and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me.

The second is actually the graver one, namely "if not so perfectly". Here is bishop Challoner's comment:

[39] "If not so perfectly": This is not said with regard to the truth of the narration; but with regard to the style and manner of writing: which in the sacred penmen is not always the most accurate. See St. Paul, 2 Cor. 11. 6.

What does that word say?

For although I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but in all things we have been made manifest to you.

One could also say, the author was leaving to a higher authority than himself whether his book was inerrant and inspired or not.

Can there be a higher authority than a hagiographer?

Yes, Samuel the prophet may have been one, Jewish tradition says he was and it is generally considered reliable by Catholics too, yet he had a High Priest over him in all except when God used him to chastise the High Priest and he had a King over him in all except where God used him to chastise the King even to the point of exchanging kings. So, hagiographers, unless themselves the highest authority in the Church, as Moses was from the time when God spoke to him in the Burning Bush, and as St Peter was from Pentecost on (and even the previous ten days), are not the highest authority.

This means, God can definitly inspire a hagiographer on what he writes, but someone else and higher on whether he wrote inerrantly and under inspiration. For St. Luke, this is obvious. Either Catholics (with Orthodox on this one) accept that St. Luke sought to have his Gospel approved by the first Pope, St. Peter, after St. Matthew's Gospel already existed and already was approved (this was the occasion on which St. Peter read in alternation from Luke and Matthew, adding some of his own, and his secretary St. Mark took it down, thinking St Peter was dictating a Gospel, which through this "inspired mistake" it became, or Protestants not accepting this accept that Gospel and Acts were approved collectively by the Church, either way St. Luke had someone over him, we do not have just his word for his Gospel and his Acts being inspired writings.

In fact, we don't even have his word for it. Here are the first four verses of the Gospel:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.

Note that the fact of writing a Gospel per se, even if referring to events of God made Man, is not enough to guarantee divine inspiration : "many" arguably means more than four, so he's arguably saying (inerrantly, if Christianity is right) that there were uninspired Gospel books.

And here is the first verse of his Acts:

The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, of all things which Jesus began to do and to teach,

He claims to be making a human effort of historiography, not to be making prophecy.

In this, he makes the same claim as the writer in II Maccabees, only without the disclaimer, which was anyway conditional.

So, there is a principle in logic : if your principle proves too much, proves what you know is false, it is the wrong principle. Something else, contradicting it on some point, is the right one.

In so far as we can argue we know in any sense Christianity is true, we need to accept that St Luke was inspired even if he was not claiming inspiration, and was inspired even if he claimed a method very different from prophecy, and we know that not through his words, but through the words of the Church about his words. But the same Church also claims I and II Maccabees are inspired, while not claiming they are prophecy. Therefore, we must accept these as inspired too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XI
Octave of Immaculate Conception
15.XII.2018