James White's latest book "Scripture Alone" and the 'Apocrypha'

[teajay]

James White, in his recent book “Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bible’s Accuracy, Authority, and Authenticity” (2004) makes a series of claims in relation to the ‘Apocrypha’ (deuterocanonicals). I need some assistance in assessing the validity of the claims he makes. Any URL’s (i.e. website links) that deal directly with the substance of any of the allegations, or direct quotes from books, would be greatly appreciated.

1. 
   *]That up to the Reformation, 50+ writers rejected these books (cited William Webster, The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha, pp. 53-83). That “the Jews”, Melito of Sardis, Origen, Athanasius, Jerome, and Pope Gregory the Great all rejected them (page 113).
   *]Jerome “viewed them as secondary works, useful and beneficial, but not for the establishment of doctrine” - no source cited (page 114).
   *]Cardinal Cajetan, in Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, rejected the books. He gives a quote that begins with “Here we close our commentaries…” and ends with “…written in the provincial council of Carthage” (I can’t be bothered with the full quote but give this information so others can determine the quote he means) (page 114).
   *]Gregory the Great, in Morals on the Book of Job, described Maccabees as “not canonical”. White says that Gregory the Great “finished writing the book while he was pope” (page 114-115).
   *]Cardinal Ximenes wrote similar sentiments to Cardinal Cajetan, in the introduction to the Greek New Testament, and that Pope Leo X “approved the publication of the work” (page 115).
   *]"(T)he dogmatic stance taken at the Council of Trent was not the view of the best read and scholarly Roman Catholic leaders of the communion” (cites William Webster Holy Scripture, 2:369-434 (page 115).
   *]Hippo and Carthage were “local, provincial councils, not ecumenical councils” that “represented the views of a single thologian – Augustine”, who couldn’t read Hebrew and wasn’t “overly skilled” in Greek (page 115).
   *]Carthage approved the Septuagint. Trent, the Vulgate. Trent “definitively removed it from the canon” i.e. Septuagint version of 1 Esdras (New Catholic Encyclopedia, II:396-97), but not before the removed material had already found its way into “papal letters and decrees, including those of Innocent I, Gelasius, and Hormisdas (no references cited) (page 116).
   *]At Trent, the final draft was approved by prelates, “none distinguished for scholarship or learning” (cites Robert Reymond, The Refomation’s Conflict With Rome, p. 22) (page 117).
   *]Trent was the “infallible pronouncement” of old testament canon (page 117).
   
   I’ve checked catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp - is there a source of the full quotes (of the various councils) and how were they verified historically? I don’t doubt them but I’m sure many Protestants might and there the ones I’d be discussing this with.

 

[jimmy]

The deuterocanonicals were called scripture in the councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Trullo, Florence, and Trent. There may even be more. Of the ones I have stated Trent was the last one to declare it.

Just because some people rejected the deuterocanonicals does not make them any less true. A large majority of the bishops accepted them. There were hundreds of bishops at the councils that decided on the canon.

 

[MrS]

teajay:

Contact by email: gmichuta@avemarialaw.edu

Gary Michuta debated White this past May on the subject of the deuterocanonical books as the latest in the series of Great Debates. The debate is available on DVD, CD, and VHS.

There will be some postage involved to get it to you.

Also, Jimmy (James) Akin has some articles on the Deutero’s too. You should be able to search this site and find them.

Just remember that James White comes from a family of anti-Catholics (except for his recently converted sister who gave him a year to try and convince her of her "errors). So be ready when he avoids the questions with a diatribe of complaints about “dem Catholics”.

Mr Shttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

If Gary is out of copies… shame on him…tell him to call me for more.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

MrS:

Just remember that James White comes from a family of anti-Catholics (except for his recently converted sister who gave him a year to try and convince her of her "errors). So be ready when he avoids the questions with a diatribe of complaints about “dem Catholics”.

It took a whole three posts to get to the ad hominem arguments? Wow, I’m impressed.

Pssst: when people revert to arguments about your family—it’s a good sign that they can’t refute your arguments.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[BouleTheou]

teajay -

Great post my friend. Let’s see if anyone will actually take up some of the points rather than referring to generic article about the apocrypha, etc. What White has documented in the points teajay laid out are facts. Just so everyone knows where I stand, I do not believe the apocrypha are inspired and thus they have no authority in the Church of Christ. I hope this will prove to be a good thread. Let’s leave White’s person aside and deal with the arguments.

BouleTheou

 

[Tom]

The fact that our Lord, Jesus the Christ used these books in His teaching is enough “proof” for me. Our Lord teaches about the resurrection, the only reference to the resurrection I’ve found in Scripture is in the Deuterocanonical books. His teaching on marriage, the two becoming one, the marriage being an everlasting, or at least life long, contract varies greatly from the OT book of Deuteronomy, but we find it clearly expressed in Tobit, along with several other examples of His teaching. The Sermon on the mount and the Lord’s prayer, from Sirach and Wisdom. Read these books with an open heart, you can’t help but find His Words. Jesus taught from the Septuagint, which includes these books, The Church used these books for over 1500 years.

 

[Tom]

One other point, the Apocrypha is not the same as the Deuterocanonical books. The Deuterocanonical books are Scripture, they are; Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and Maccabees 1 & 2.
The “Apocrypha” are those books and writings which are not inspired Scripture such as the “gospel” of Mary, the gnostics etc. The “Apocrypha” are not inspired so I would not have expected St Jerome to approve of them. Strange for someone to use a Catholic for his “reference” in attempting to disprove these books.
Many people use these terms interchangeably, which is where the confusion comes from.

 

[BouleTheou]

Tom -

The fact that our Lord, Jesus the Christ used these books in His teaching is enough “proof” for me. Our Lord teaches about the resurrection, the only reference to the resurrection I’ve found in Scripture is in the Deuterocanonical books.

Ever read the Psalms or the book of Acts?

Here is one of many many examples:

Acts 2:25-32 wherein Peter cites Psalm 16:8-11

For David says concerning Him:

"I foresaw the LORD always before my face,
For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.
26Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad;
Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.
27For You will not leave my soul in Hades,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
28You have made known to me the ways of life;
You will make me full of joy in Your presence.'4]

29"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,5] 31he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.

You also said:

His teaching on marriage, the two becoming one, the marriage being an everlasting, or at least life long, contract varies greatly from the OT book of Deuteronomy,

The only Scripture he cites is from Genesis - never the Deuterocanonicals.

but we find it clearly expressed in Tobit, along with several other examples of His teaching.

Such as?

The Sermon on the mount

Cites only the Law, never the deuterocanonicals.

and the Lord’s prayer, from Sirach and Wisdom.

The Lord’s prayer cites nothing, nor is it found in Sirach or Wisdom.

Read these books with an open heart, you can’t help but find His Words.

Where?

Jesus taught from the Septuagint, which includes these books, The Church used these books for over 1500 years.

The earliest copies of the Septuagint we possess were produced not by Jews but by Christians. Hence the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals in them proves nothing. The Lord Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament never a single time cite the apocrypha and use the phrase “it is written.” They are not Scripture and are not binding upon any Christian person in any way whatsoever.

BouleTheou

 

[beng]

BouleTheou:

The earliest copies of the Septuagint we possess were produced not by Jews but by Christians. Hence the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals in them proves nothing.

Funny, I thought the fact that Septaguint was used by Christians and not Jews only proves that Septaguint should be considered more.

The Lord Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament never a single time cite the apocrypha and use the phrase “it is written.” They are not Scripture and are not binding upon any Christian person in any way whatsoever.

BouleTheou

By that criteria would you willing to rip out:

1. Joshua
2. Judges
3. Ruth
4. 2 Kings
5. 1 Chronicles
6. 2 Chronicles
7. Ezra
8. Nehemiah
9. Esther
10. Ecclesiastes
11. Song of Solomon
12. Lamentation
13. Obaja
14. Nahum
15. Zephaniah

… from you Bible? After all, they’re never directly quoted by Jesus or the Apostles

 

[BouleTheou]

Beng -

Funny, I thought the fact that Septaguint was used by Christians and not Jews only proves that Septaguint should be considered more.

It was… your point is? Funny, the NT writers never a single time cite any of the apocrypha and say, “it is written.” I wonder why.

Quote:
The Lord Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament never a single time cite the apocrypha and use the phrase “it is written.” They are not Scripture and are not binding upon any Christian person in any way whatsoever.

BouleTheou
By that criteria would you willing to rip out:

1. Joshua
2. Judges
3. Ruth
4. 2 Kings
5. 1 Chronicles
6. 2 Chronicles
7. Ezra
8. Nehemiah
9. Esther
10. Ecclesiastes
11. Song of Solomon
12. Lamentation
13. Obaja
14. Nahum
15. Zephaniah

I didn’t know Obaja was one of the prophets

Your error is, you’re putting this argument in my mouth which I did not make: unless it is cited as Scripture by the NT, it is not canonical. I never said that, nor is that true. I’m simply pointing out that the apocrypha was never contained in the three-fold division, “the law, the prophets, and the writings” which Jesus used and held men accountable for knowing. And while the apocrypha is pretty long - it is not cited even a single time by Christ or the apostles. Paul said in Romans 3:2 that the Jewish people had the “oracles of God” entrusted to them. And they never received the apocrypha as Scripture. **Even the prologue to Ecclesiasticus itself cites “the law, the prophets, and the writings.” I have a simple question for you, beng. How can Ecclesiasticus be part of “the law, the prophets, and the writings” when it itself makes reference to “the law, the prophets, and the writings.” ? **
BouleTheou

 

[beng]

BouleTheou:

Beng -

It was… your point is? Funny, the NT writers never a single time cite any of the apocrypha and say, “it is written.” I wonder why.

And so are the one on the list I gave. So why don’t you throw them out?

I didn’t know Obaja was one of the prophets

Your error is, you’re putting this argument in my mouth which I did not make: unless it is cited as Scripture by the NT, it is not canonical. I never said that, nor is that true.

Than my respond should correct nayone who confuse of what you;'re trying to imply.

I’m simply pointing out that the apocrypha was never contained in the three-fold division, “the law, the prophets, and the writings” which Jesus used and held men accountable for knowing.

Jesus never detailed what men must used accountable for.

And while the apocrypha is pretty long - it is not cited even a single time by Christ or the apostles.

Who care?

If you believe that “not quoted =/= not canonical” than why are you keep trying to emphasize this point?

Paul said in Romans 3:2 that the Jewish people had the “oracles of God” entrusted to them. And they never received the apocrypha as Scripture.

Funny, I thought the true Jewish are the one who follow the Mesiah, thus the first Christians. Who care about what some heretic Jews thinking.

**Even the prologue to Ecclesiasticus itself cites “the law, the prophets, and the writings.” I have a simple question for you, beng. How can Ecclesiasticus be part of “the law, the prophets, and the writings” when it itself makes reference to “the law, the prophets, and the writings.” ? **
BouleTheou

How is making reference to the Law, Prophets and Writings exclude ecclesiasticus from Canon? That is not a litmus test to scarp a divinely inspired book.

 

[Chris_W]

I’m no Bible scholar, but it seems to me the dispute over what books belong in the Bible is all the more evidence we need an authority outside of the Bible to answer the question.

Boule Theou has indicated on another thread (“My response to a Catholic Challenge”) that his method of determining what is or is not canon is based on what the Christians of the past accepted as canon. I wonder how James White determines what should and should not be included in the Bible? He points to what St Jerome thought as well as other Christians of the past, but without an authority capable of making the determination, it is all just opinions of human beings, isn’t it?

It appears that even prior to the second century there were controversies over the inspired character of even some New Testament books, namely the Letter to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. Some of this controversy can be seen in the very oldest known Christian canon, called the Muratorian Fragment (also called Bibliotheca Ambrosiana) written between 180 and 200 ad, from the region of Rome. This dispute was settled by the councils of Hippo and Carthage by the fourth century and reaffirmed again by Pope Innocent 1 in 405 ad.

I understand that Martin Luther removed these books from the NT. But then by about 1700 ad Luther’s followers reinstated those books. To which of the past Christians should we give credence?

How is a person to know for sure? Did God perhaps leave us to debate human opinions for all of time? I think not. God gave us a means of knowing for sure. But to debate people who refuse to recognize that authority, is to forever debate hearsay, in my opinion. James White is his own authority, in his mind. How can you argue with that? I don’t see how anyone can prove the inspiration of any Scriptural text without the use of an infallible authority external to that Scripture (and please don’t revert to claims that “the Holy Spirit guides the individual to that truth”).

 

[beng]

"What Christian accepted as Canon in the past" is not a good determinative criteria because then you would have to reject Rev, James, Hebrew, Jude etc but you also have to accpet Sheppard of Hermas, Didache, Protoevangelium James etc.

 

[Tom]

Sirach 28,2 see Matthw 6, 12; 18,21-22
Sirach 28, 1-5 see Matthew 6,14 & 18,35

 

[Tom]

Mk 11, 25 see Sir 28, 1-5

 

[Tom]

Mt 7, 1-5; Lk 6, 37-38, 41-24 see Wis 12 ,22

 

[Tom]

Mt 11, 29; Sir 51,26

 

[Vincent]

That up to the Reformation, 50+ writers rejected these books (cited William Webster, The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha, pp. 53-83). That “the Jews”, Melito of Sardis, Origen, Athanasius, Jerome, and Pope Gregory the Great all rejected them (page 113).

It’s odd that he mentions Athanasius, who includes Baruch but leaves out Esther.

 

[Tom]

Mt 18, 15; Sir 19,13

 

[Tom]

Mt 21,16; Wis 10,21 (this is also in Pss 8,2)