And of course, the Jews believed in creation ex nihilo "without the support of 2nd Maccabees": that's why the Jewish mother exhorting her sons to bravely face martyrdom as recorded in that book points to creation ex nihilo, and why the Jewish author wrote about this exhortation approvingly. Likewise Christians believed the doctrines of which St. Paul reminded the various recipients of his letters before St. Paul wrote them -- many of the letters are explicitly in the form of reminders of what he had taught them face-to-face. Remember, neither Jews nor traditional Christians place themselves under the constraint of being able to "prove" every doctrine from Scripture -- all have a concept of sacred tradition, which protestants, esp. those who call themselves "Biblical Christians" purport to reject, even while setting up (as is necessary, texts, whether inspired of God or written by mere men, not being self-interpreting) their own traditions. (For example, most "Biblical Christians" who purport to read the Bible "literally" have trouble with taking literally "this is My body" and "this is My blood" in the institution of the Lord's Supper, because their tradition is set up in part in deliberate opposition to the traditions of the Latin church.)
If you have 2nd Maccabees in your Bible, there it is in black and white: creation ex nihilo is a Biblical doctrine. If you don't, you have to rely on rabbinic tradition (to which you've just appealed) or some other interpretative tradition (e.g. derivative from the ancient Christian confessions all of which do have 2nd Maccabees in their canon) to hold the doctrine.
Why Christians would prefer to appeal to the Jewish interpretative tradition which since Our Lord's Incarnation has been denying that Jesus is Lord, denying that Jesus is the Christ, in preference for the tradition of the Church which has proclaimed Him as indeed Our Lord, God and Savior, and which follows Him, is a complete mystery to me, but that is what the preference for the Masorete over the Septuagint as the basis for the canon of the Old Testament amounts to: favoring the judgement of Christ-denying rabbis over the judgement of holy bishops.
“But I have defended the view that 2nd Maccabees is inspired Scripture:”
All of your arguments were already refuted. Since you didn’t bother to reply to what I said, even ignoring the words of a patriarch, I figured you conceded it or couldn’t refute my replies, and I figured that was the reason why you tried to shift the discussion.
It’s very common for people to just keep spamming over and over again the same arguments, regardless of how silly they are or how often they’ve been answered.
You’re free to hold whatever strange view of reality you want, but you can’t force other people to accept them by the force of repetition. If you don’t reply to what I say, I’m under no obligation to keep replying to you or taking you seriously on this topic.
“And of course, the Jews believed in creation ex nihilo “without the support of 2nd Maccabees”:”
Which basically is another admission that 2 Maccabees had nothing to do with that doctrine being believed, despite what you claimed earlier, that the church’s position was based on 2 Maccabees, that even the Apostles derived their understanding from 2 Maccabees. Of course, you then go on to say that the teaching of God creating the world from nothing is “tradition.” So now we’re off the canonicity of 2 Maccabees and the importance of its teachings, and are now ditching it altogether and relying on “tradition.” Which, really, all you’re doing now is disagreeing with Jews and Christians about the meaning of Genesis 1, and all the other passages that teach that God created “all things, and through Him all things consist,” and “not from that which is seen” as Paul puts it in Hebrews 11:3.
“Remember, neither Jews nor traditional Christians place themselves under the constraint of being able to “prove” every doctrine from Scripture — “
That is the position of the Eastern Orthodox, since most of their doctrines can’t be defended with just the scriptures, and only exist by picking and choosing what particular church Father to believe, despite the fact that they rarely believe all that your people claim to believe. For example, you basically just rejected the counsel of Cyril of Jerusalem when he said:
“Have thou ever in your mind this seal , which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lecture 4)
This is why I never take these types of arguments seriously, because it’s based on assumptions which don’t even make sense in their own universe.
Now as to your claim that I was appealing to “Rabbanic tradition.” That’s complete rubbish. I was appealing to what the Jews claim their own language means. Otherwise any attempt at exegesis or word-defining is simply an application of “tradition.”