James White error regarding the discovery of codex Sinaiticus
In an article that can be found on his website, Dr white refers to an article by Dr Stauffer on the discovery of codex Sinaiticus writes, and I quote
“I did a little looking around the net for materials by Dr. Stauffer, and very quickly ran across this article. And it took just a moment to read this:
The Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope’s library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai) were the two texts that influenced the Alexandrian text type the most.”
Dr white further writes that “any Scholar who cannot get this story straight is not worth reading”.
“I’m sorry, but any “scholar” who can’t even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest. I remember correcting Dave Hunt on this very same error a few years ago in St. Louis. Sure it is common to say this, but repeating an error does not make it true. And for someone who claims the level of expertise necessary to write a book on the translation of the Bible and the issues of the King James Version should surely know better than to repeat errors like this. What is worse, he cites from my book frequently, which means he knows this statement is factually untrue. Here is the section from my work:”
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/king-james-onlyism/dr-stauffer-on-codex-sinaiticus/
However, James white in his book, the KJV only controversy, wrote and I quote.
“Tischendorf embarked on a journey to the Middle East in 1844, searching for Biblical manuscripts. While visiting St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai, he noticed some parchment scraps in a basket that was to be used to stoke the fires in the monastery’s oven.”
In a footnote he writes
“If you’re wondering why these scraps would be in a trash can, the answer is that ancient books, be they made of papyrus or vellum, decay over time. Bits of pages, the final or initial pages of a codex, were very subject to loss; they would, over time, find their way to the floor and need to be picked up to avoid a real fire hazard.”
So it would seem that Dr White was in fact fully aware that the manuscript was found in a trash can, ready to be burned and simply contradicted himself.
Constantine von Tischendorf, himself wrote that on his first visit to St Catherine’s monastery in 1844, that he had come across the pages of what he perceived as being a copy of the Old Testament in Greek in a basket ready for the flames. Tischendorf, states that he was allowed to purchase 45 sheets of this manuscript.
“I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of paper like this, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-five sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up possession of the remainder.”
When were our gospels written (page 28)
Tischendorf, named these pages Codex Frederico-Augustus and they were taken to Leipzig University. The pages of the manuscript are still there. They are in fact quires 35.1 – 37.3 and 47-49 of what is Codex Sinaiticus. (These were certainly not the “the final or initial pages of a codex” as Dr White asserted pages in a trash can would be.
Dr White continues on to state.
“Upon examining them he discovered they contained part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This was exactly what he was looking for, so he asked if he could take the scraps to his room for further examination, warning the monks not to be burning such items.”
Again Dr. White shows he is aware that these were part of the manuscript, and in fact were exactly what he (Tischendorf) was looking for.
But, while referring to Tischendorf’s third visit to the monastery in 1859 James White further states:
“From the closet in his cell he produced a manuscript, wrapped in a red cloth. The monk had no idea of the treasure in his hands, for this was none other than Codex Sinaiticus, which at that time was at least fifteen hundred years old!”
This now being 15 years after Tischendorf had first visited in 1844. He also visited in 1853 but to no avail.
Although this part is accurate, when we look at Tischendorfs own written attestation of this event, it must be noted that Tischendorf himself, states that included in the manuscript that the Monk showed were the VERY FRAGMENTS he had seen 15 years prior in the basket. This is NOT mentioned by Dr White.
“As we returned toward sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said, “And I too have read a Septuagint, i.e., a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy;” and so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas.”
When were our gospels written page 32
In footnotes on page 58 James White refers to a statement by D. A. Waite where he claimed that some individuals “just about worship” Codex Sinaiticus he then states that it was an inaccurate claim that Siniaticus was about to be burned but rather it was wrapped in a red cloth.
“This, after alleging, inaccurately, that before being found À was about to be burned (one will note that that the steward at St. Catherine’s kept the manuscript in his cell, wrapped in a red cloth, hardly the way one treats trash.”
King james only controversy page 58 footnotes
But as we saw, while it is very true that in 1859 on his 3rd visit, Tischendorf was presented by the Monk with Codex Sinaiticus that was indeed wrapped in a red cloth, that manuscript contained the very pages that, according to tischendorf had been in the bin ready for the fire on his first visit in 1844.
So while Sinaitucus was not found in a basket in 1859 but was presented wrapped in a red cloth, it was in fact found in a basket in 1844.
So James White has either accidentally mixed up the account that Tischendorf
himself describes or Mr White has deliberately misrepresented the story. Either way I think this has serious implications for a scholar on the level of Mr White.
Well, Mr White, while I have read much of what you have produced, and disagree with much you proclaim, I would also disagree with your statement in your own article., I think you are worth reading, despite not being able to get this story straight, I just think you should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Dr White, is undoubtedly a well studied and intelligent man. I also think he is biased, is prone to the odd factual mistake, he is human like the rest of us after all, and he is at times slightly disingenuous.
If you liked this study please subscribe here
you can purchase my books here
You can support me through Patreon
0 Comments