James R. White Misrepresents Again - Part III

[Guardian]

Sometimes when I get bored, I play the game, “How long does it take to find a distortion of the truth by James R. White?” After searching his website, found here, it only took me a quick 5 minutes and 23 seconds.

In his article titled “New Lows in Poor Scholarship: Jeffrey L. Morrow Completely Misses the Historical Facts in a Recent Catholic Answers Article” found here, Mr. White tries to make his ignorant readers believe that Athanasius considered the Deuterocanonicals as apocryphal. When discussing the canon, White quotes Athanasius as saying:

1. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: ‘Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,’ to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

1. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

1. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

Thus, reading only this from Athanasius would certainly lead one to believe that those books not listed in the canon were considered apocryphal as deemed by paragraph 3. However, Mr. White conveniently **leaves out **what Athanasius said just two paragaraphs later:

1. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

Obviously Athanasius did not consider the Deuterocanonicals as apocryphal, as he says they are not in paragraph 7. This can be verified by reading Athanasius’ letter in completeness, found here.

The ironic part of this is how Mr. White labels this article “New Lows in Poor Scholarship” and accuses someone else of it. Haha. Nice try Mr. White…nice try.

 

[deb1]

This sounds like more then poor scholarship. It sounds dishonest. I don’t understand such behavior. Doesn’t Mr. White believe in his own beliefs? Why distort anything if you believe that you are correct?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Good work. Its amazing how much of Catholic Apologetics is in regards to simply reading the context.

It should also be noted in paragraph 4 it says:
Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch,
This is a “Deuterocanonical” book which St A did accept along with the Isaiah and Jermiah. So right there Protestantism has a problem.
Whats more, in paragraph 7 it says:
The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther
Here St Athanasius places Esther in the Deuterocanonical section which Protestants consider fully inspired and part of the OT.

:whacky:

 

[kaycee]

Certainly Dr. Whites argument is about what is in the CANON, NOT the correct title and contents of the Deuterocanonical section otherwise known as the Apocrapha.

Athanasius clearly says they are not part of the Canon.

1. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us

 

[Lazerlike42]

Certainly Dr. Whites argument is about what is in the CANON, NOT the correct title and contents of the Deuterocanonical section otherwise known as the Apocrapha.

Athanasius clearly says they are not part of the Canon.

1. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us

This is not the point, because the word “canon” is somewhat deceiving when speaking of the early Church. Today, we equate “canonical” with “inspired,” but that is not how the early Church viewed it. The usage of the word ‘canon’ has changed several times over the years, and was used in no consistent way in the patristic age. There are Church fathers who will write that a book is not canonical, but in the same stroke of the pen state that it is inspired. What really matters, as Mr. White would say, is which books are theopneustas, God breathed, inspired, and the fathers referred to the Deuterocanons as such. Simply saying they are not included in the canon is insufficient, as the term was used inconsistently, sometimes even by the same father. What matters here is that Athanasius says that his list would be *incomplete *if he were not to list these books, which would by his standards make Protestant Bibles today also incomplete.

There is also another issue at play here. He also here provides a quote of Athanasius where the father condemns the apocrypha as rubbish not to be read, and then proceeds to talk about how this is proof against the Deuterocanons, or as Protestants call them, the apocrypha. However, he fails to provide the quotefrom Athansius that Guardian did when, in the very same work, he explicitly lists the Deuterocanons and contrasts them with the apocrypha, in other words, showing that he does not consider them apocryphal. This is at best shoddy scholarship, and at worst straightforward dishonesty.

 

[corrgc]

Greetings!

Pray for James White. I do…

Sincerely in Christ,
Corrgc

 

[corrgc]

… This is at best shoddy scholarship, and at worst straightforward dishonesty.

Considering the source…this is not a surprise.

Corrgc

 

[runandsew]

Certainly Dr. Whites argument is about what is in the CANON, NOT the correct title and contents of the Deuterocanonical section otherwise known as the Apocrapha.

Athanasius clearly says they are not part of the Canon.

1. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us
2. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number

So you are saying that there are only suppose to be the 22 books on the Old Testament that Athanasius mentioned in the letter, now I am aware that there were books which were combined that are now seperate books, but should we take Esther out of the Bible, because according to you logic it was not to be included in the canon.

Also, by what authority did the Protestant Reformers change the canon of the Bible?

 

[Guardian]

This is not the point, because the word “canon” is somewhat deceiving when speaking of the early Church. Today, we equate “canonical” with “inspired,” but that is not how the early Church viewed it. The usage of the word ‘canon’ has changed several times over the years, and was used in no consistent way in the patristic age. There are Church fathers who will write that a book is not canonical, but in the same stroke of the pen state that it is inspired. What really matters, as Mr. White would say, is which books are theopneustas, God breathed, inspired, and the fathers referred to the Deuterocanons as such. Simply saying they are not included in the canon is insufficient, as the term was used inconsistently, sometimes even by the same father. What matters here is that Athanasius says that his list would be *incomplete *if he were not to list these books, which would by his standards make Protestant Bibles today also incomplete.

There is also another issue at play here. He also here provides a quote of Athanasius where the father condemns the apocrypha as rubbish not to be read, and then proceeds to talk about how this is proof against the Deuterocanons, or as Protestants call them, the apocrypha. However, he fails to provide the quotefrom Athansius that Guardian did when, in the very same work, he explicitly lists the Deuterocanons and contrasts them with the apocrypha, in other words, showing that he does not consider them apocryphal. This is at best shoddy scholarship, and at worst straightforward dishonesty.

Exactly! I couldn’t have said it better myself.

This is another classic example of how Ole’ White hijacks the Fathers. It’s quite pathetic, and I feel sorry for anyone that honestly yet ignorantly follows this man’s teaching.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Certainly Dr. Whites argument…

Kaycee-

You might want to throttle back on that “Dr.” White stuff. I’m not picking a fight with you…just providing a little “truth in advertising”.

Mr. White holds the following degrees:

Th.D., Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 1998
D.Min, Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 2002

At columbiaseminary.edu/aboutus/accreditation.html, I read the following from the President Rick “Josh” Walston’s statement on the “accreditation issue”:

“Columbia Evangelical Seminary is not accredited. However, as stated above, if you do not absolutely need a degree from an accredited school, why spend the extra money earning one when a degree from a non-accredited school may serve your purposes just as well?”

I understand distance learning. I also understand “not accredited”.

I guess one reason people should “spend the extra money” is to establish legitimate credibility in the eyes of the academic community.

Bona fides it’s called, I believe. Perhaps Latin is not one of Mr. White’s languages. http://www.envoymagazine.com/Forum/icon_smile.gif

 

[Guardian]

Kaycee-

You might want to throttle back on that “Dr.” White stuff. I’m not picking a fight with you…just providing a little “truth in advertising”.

Mr. White holds the following degrees:

Th.D., Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 1998
D.Min, Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 2002

At columbiaseminary.edu/aboutus/accreditation.html, I read the following from the President Rick “Josh” Walston’s statement on the “accreditation issue”:

“Columbia Evangelical Seminary is not accredited. However, as stated above, if you do not absolutely need a degree from an accredited school, why spend the extra money earning one when a degree from a non-accredited school may serve your purposes just as well?”

I understand distance learning. I also understand “not accredited”.

I guess one reason people should “spend the extra money” is to establish legitimate credibility in the eyes of the academic community.

Bona fides it’s called, I believe. Perhaps Latin is not one of Mr. White’s languages. http://www.envoymagazine.com/Forum/icon_smile.gif

Everyone and their brother knows that “Dr.” White’s degree is a bunch of balogna…so let’s not make this thread about his credentials. There have been other threads that have discussed this.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Everyone and their brother knows that “Dr.” White’s degree is a bunch of balogna…so let’s not make this thread about his credentials. There have been other threads that have discussed this.

I believe the technical term for the fallacy you fellows are utilizing is “poisoning the well”.

The truth, or lack thereof, of one’s arguments do not depend on if he comes from Harvard or from the favelas of Rio.

(Edited by Moderator)

 

[Atreyu]

I believe the technical term for the fallacy you fellows are utilizing is “poisoning the well”.

The truth, or lack thereof, of one’s arguments do not depend on if he comes from Harvard or from the favelas of Rio.

(Edited by Moderator)

And so were the writings of James White - as mentioned above - a misrepresentation of the truth? (Edited by Moderator)