The White Question: Jews Recognizing Scripture Decimates Catholic Canon Arguments

James White's "the White Question" destroys Roman Catholic arguments and how they try to sneak in Rome as an authority you need to recognize Scripture.

This has bearing on our understanding of the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books as well. Also, in how the New Testament canon was recognized.

[alexjohnston]

I think part of the answer here is Jews didn't have consensus on scripture in its entirety. He even says in his video that Sadducees and Pharisees probably didnt have consensus and we know the dead sea scroll community included deutocanonical books, but for the most part they all did agree on the 1st five books. With that you could see how Jesus could hold people accountable to those just like I can hold my kid for knowing her times tables without saying I need a closed definition of what is and isn't "math"

[FisherOfMenParakletos]

"thought of on the fly" compared to 2000 years of Saints from both the Catholic and Orthodox church agreeing that the deuterocanon is scripture.

[nics]

Hey everyone, I hope you all are doing well. I was wondering if you guys can help me out. I was asked the other day why Protestants do not include the Apocrypha in our Bible. I heard a couple people say “the Jews do not accept it so we shouldn’t” and “it goes against what the rest of the Bible teaches.” I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help. This question really got me and I don’t know how to answer it.

[mfjh]

All the reformers had 73 books in their bibles that were agreed upon in the counsel of Rome in 382 AD. It wasn't until 1825 that the British and Foreign Bible Society that decided to only print 66 books in the bible. For 1500 years all Christians had the same bible, but for the last 198 years some Christians decided 66 books were sufficient. The Septuagint included all seven books which the Disciples carried around for teaching. If these books were used by the 12 disciples they should be used today.

[gnoinal]

“The White question “. Wow, that bit of self-aggrandizement made me laugh for real.

[mando]

James White needs to talk to Brant Pitre.

[charleskramer]

A Jew could not have known in the time of Jesus. The Saduccees had restricted itself to the five books of Moses. The Pharisees had a different canon. Others included the deuterocanonical books in their canon. Debates over the Jewish canon continued past the time of the resurrection.

As far as Jesus “holding people accountable”, he held them accountable to their own beliefs as to what the canon was.

[tickles]

There was no need due to the fact that up until that point everyone was Catholic.

[forgivemylaughterihaveacon]

What other books did Luther try to reject ?

[jamessheffield]

The Jews claim their canon was closed circa 400 B.C. There is just no evidence that a Jewish emperor, Caliph, or pope ordered the Apocrypha books removed since the Jewish congregations have always been independent of each other. That settles it.

[ConciseCabbage]

Strange that White never ever makes a positive claim on how the canon was known at this time.

If I were Catholic I would say, “I don’t know, you tell me.”

[pretty-white-lamb]

The whole Catholic / Eastern Orthodox position on scriptural canonicity is misconceived to start with. The idea that a lower authority (e.g. the church) cannot recognise a higher authority (e.g. divinely revealed scripture), and that therefore the church must have equal or greater authority than scripture... is, on its face, false both in logic and fact.

Logically speaking, the mere act of recognising something is the case does not give you any kind of immediate power or authority over said case.

And factually speaking — think about it, if you verify that your bills are authentic from the tax office, does that authenticating act give you more or equal power to the state or tax office? If you have a message from a king verified for you, does the verifying person or office thereby gain equal or greater authority to the king? If an archaeologist verifies an artefact as from a certain ancient Egyptian dynasty, does he in some mystical way become equal to the Pharaoh or the people of that dynasty? Likewise, the fact that the church can authenticate scripture in no way implies that the church has authority over or co-equal with said scripture. Sacred scripture carries the seal of the King of Heaven; the church pastors are merely its heralds.

It's a silly misconception; one that relies on aesthetic stupefaction over the great majesty of the medieval ecclesiastical institution, which often wielded The Bible as a kind of one holy relic within its gallery of holy relics.

[martyshrader]

The reason the canon wasn’t defined until Trent was the church doesn’t casually define something until a heresy is posed in a grand way. Also, if the canon wasn’t defined until Trent then how did the Orthodox get the same canon as the Catholics given they split off in 1054. The Sadducee vs Pharisee vs others is a valid Catholic point, further why would the church accept a Jewish perspective (Jamnia) as to the canon? I’m a Protestant but it’s arguments like Dr Whites that are moving me towards Catholicism. I have been searching for reasonable and clear Protestant arguments against Catholicism and I’m not find it.

[whalewil]

a) the OT canon wasn’t finalized

b) the Jews knew the canon based on Jewish tradition and the scribes who sat on the seat of Moses, of whom Christ commands us to obey their words but not imitate their works because of their authority on account of the seat of Moses.

[captainmarvel]

Dr. White actually with great irony headed down this line of argument appeals to the rabbinic Pharisees tradition which later wrote the babylonian Talmundic writings, the synagogues and rabbis. Appealling to Jamnia appeals to the very group of people that condemned Jesus Christ and all the apostles. Bravo.

[isaakleillhikar]

Isnt the books making the hands unclean a saying the Pharisees made after Christ ?

[riverasamuel]

Jews before Jesus didnt had an established canon, there were a lot of factions that had different canons like sadducees and Pharisees and the one that john the baptist belonged to (I forgot its name esenians?)

And jews who rejected our Lord chose a canon opposed to the the doctrines of the christians. Which is quite an ironic choice

[sptomase]

This is such nonsense. Most Jews in Jesus time 110% accepted the books we have in our OT. The Bible was a done deal by the late 300’s early 400’s. Just because some had individual opinions doesn’t mean it was ‘up for debate’ because it wasn’t. I want us to go back to the Latin Mass and there are some cardinals who agree but that doesn’t mean if they become Pope one day they are retroactively invoking papal infallibility or it was up for debate. The reason Protestants need to justify they could remove books of the Bible is so they can argue they aren’t schismatics. Jesus Christ himself gave the key to heaven to Peter the first Pope and that continues to day so yeah the Catholic Church gets to decide. I know most Protestants love God but y’all are just playing Christian. When you can’t even come to the conclusion that Christ body and blood are truly present in the Holy Eucharist after he REPEATEDLY doubled and tripled down on it you prove you have no right to say what is inspired and what’s not.

[Richard-oopc]

Which Jews? Jews were not in agreement amongst themselves.

Also, "The White Question?" This man is so full of himself.

[nicholassantosuosso]

the old testament canon was in dispute. it was not finalized