Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: James White boomerang - any 'scholar' who can't even get this story straight ...

  1. Default James White boomerang - any 'scholar' who can't even get this story straight ...

    Normally, I do not make reference to the standard disinformation about Sinaiticus in the books. This one has such a delicious irony that we will make an exception:

    CARM
    James White boomerang - any “scholar” who can’t even get this story straight ...
    Steven Avery - May 8, 2016
    https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/th...story-straight

    Since CARM threads poof away, usually after about two-three years, and they get a lot of extraneous commentary, I will use this thread as a holding point on:

    James White and the Reflections

    ======================

    This is also helpful because James White is the public face of opposition to the study of the question of Sinaiticus authenticity. We see that he is not reliable or accurate on even the simplest of issues.

    =======================

    Added 5-20-2016

    Facebook - PureBible
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/pure...6595167099039/

    Facebook - Confessional Bibliology
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/Conf...3470959539159/

    [W-V] James White boomerang - any "scholar" who can't even get this story straight ...
    Steven Avery 5-20-2016
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/whichversion/conversations/messages/47142

    =======================
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 05-18-2018 at 09:05 AM.

  2. Default James White accuses others of lack of credibility and dishonesty based on his own blunders!


    Earlier discussion.

    [TC-Alternate-list] James White myths about Codex Sinaiticus
    Steven Avery - Feb 9, 2011
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alt...t/message/3938


    [TC-Alternate-list]
    James White and Codex Sinaiticus
    James Snapp, Jr. - Feb 10, 2011
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...ns/topics/3940

    BenD and Steven,

    Putting two and two together, with the help of the information you've supplied, here is the solution to the problem: White has simply failed to realize that what Tischendorf found in the basket during his first visit to St. Catherine's = pages from Codex Sinaiticus.

    I provide further details in a comment over at the KJV-Only-Debate Blog:

    Regarding White's attempt to correct the idea that Tischendorf found Siniaticus in or near a wastebasket: I think I've perceived the problem. In The King James Only Controversy, White summarizes (on pages 32-33) the story of how Tischendorf visited St. Catherine's monastery, and found "some scraps of parchment in a basket that was due to be used to stoke the fires in the oven of the monastery." The thing is, White apparently read Tischendorf's account in a cursory manner, or recollected it imperfectly, or both, and seems to have never realized that those "scraps of parchment" were pages from Codex Sinaiticus.

    And to top it off, in the article that you mentioned, from March 15, 2006, White wrote, "Any "scholar" who can't even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest." The carnage that could have been wrought with this in a debate against White by a skilled and aggressive opponent -- well it just would be better not to think about that before going to bed.

    And lest anyone think I am judging White's statements harshly, hey, this is the most altruistic interpretation of his statements; the alternative would be that he is deceiving his readers deliberately, instead of accidentally/carelessly/negligently.
    King James Only?
    Follow Up to the James White–Jack Moorman KJV Debate
    Feb 6, 2011
    https://kjvonlydebate.com/2011/02/06...an-kjv-debate/

    [TC-Alternate-list] James White and Codex Sinaiticus - when scholarship descends to satire
    Steven Avery - Feb 10, 2011
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/3942


    Notice that James seemed to have first caught the "any scholar" phrase, in 3940, which I note as a "good catch".

    [TC-Alternate-list] Daniel Wallace - proper concern about Tischendorf - James White myths re: Sinaiticus
    Steven Avery - Feb 12, 2011
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alt...t/message/3943

    [TC-Alternate-list] James White factual / historical errors - #1 waste-basket - #2 nomina sacra
    Steven Avery - Feb 12, 2011
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/.../messages/3947

    [TC-Alternate-list] James White (any "scholar") myths about Codex Sinaiticus - Alan Kurschner redux
    Steven Avery - August, 2013
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...ns/topics/5760

    ====================

    From the posts above we even noted:

    Now we go to the web site of James White:

    An Introduction to Textual Criticism:Part 6--The Challenge to the Received Text
    04/12/2008 - Colin Smith
    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2008/04/12/an-introduction-to-textual-criticism-part-6-the-challenge-to-the-received-text/

    Constantin von Tischendorf was an industrious and prolific textual scholar. He expended much energy hunting out manuscripts, ....while visiting the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai, he noticed some parchment leaves in a wastebasket. When he examined them he recognized the text as coming from the Greek Septuagint written in an early uncial script. According to Tischendorf, these parchment leaves were to be used for lighting the monastery oven, though,as Dr. Daniel Wallace has suggested, this might just be Tischendorf's embellishment to make himself sound more of a rescuer than a thief. Tischendorf warned the monks that the parchment was too valuable to use for kindling ....
    Codex Sinaiticus and the Trash Can
    Colin Tyler - April 16, 2013

    http://www.dudleygospel.co.uk/blog/read_74530/codex-sinaiticus-and-the-trash-can.html

    During that debate James White made the following statements.
    “I did want to correct just one misapprehension. Sinaiticus was not found in or near a trashcan. That is a common myth, but it’s untrue. All you have to do is read Constantine von Tischendorf’s own first-hand account of his discovery of the manuscript. A monk brought it out of the closet, the cell, wrapped in red cloth. Folks, people in monasteries do not wrap garbage in red cloths, O.K?”
    The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (1995, 2009 updated edition)
    James R. White
    https://books.google.com/books?id=qIdPPHxUeCQC&pg=PA58

    Was Sinaiticus Found In a Trash Can or Not? More Hip & Thigh Nonsense
    Sept 30, 2013
    https://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/

    ================

    Youtube - Feb 3, 2011
    James White Debates Jack Moorman On Exclusive King James Onlyism
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTfiuksOwl4
    (my comment placed 5-20-2016, may also be placed on other youtubes of this debate

    Similar youtube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wpoqMiYYTo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbQLAavs7Hw
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHR8wJAjNFo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwe_nxeVwE0

    RESEARCH AND POSTING NOTES

    quotes from White book - KJV Only controversy - one is about the few who have handled it (This is partly done by James Snapp, see the next post)

    fundamentalforums.com may not be working - omitted

    see also Ehrman

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 05-21-2016 at 11:18 PM.

  3. Default James Snapp and Maurice Robinson on the James White errors


    ======================

    It is pointed out (post #141 of the previous thraad) that in his 2009 book James White wrote:

    King James Only Controversy (2009 edition)
    https://books.google.com/books?id=q7H_2eQC91kC&pg=PA56

    If you're wondering why these scraps would be in a trash can, the answer is that ancient books, be they made of papyri or vellum, decay over time. Bits of pages, the final or initial pages in a codex, were very subject to loss; they would, over time, find their way to the floor and need to he picked up or pose a real fire hazard.
    White, however, was not identifiying "these scraps" as Sinaiticus, so the James White blunder continues to this very day.

    It could still be corrected .. better 10-20 years late than never.

    James Snapp even covered the additional blunders added by James White in his 2009 book here (emphasis added):

    King James Only?
    James White vs. Will Kinney
    https://kjvonlydebate.com/2011/08/09...s-will-kinney/

    In the revised (2009) edition of James White’s King James Only Controversy, Tischendorf’s story about how he found Codex Sinaiticus continues to be promoted. White continues to describe 43 pages of Codex Sinaiticus as “some parchment scraps,” and apparently still does not know that he is referring to pages from Codex Sinaiticus when he refers to those “parchment scraps.”

    It’s the new footnote, though, that I found interesting. In the text, White states (as if there is no doubt whatsoever about the veracity of Tischendorf’s tale), “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.” To this statement, a footnote has been added:

    “If you’re wondering why these scraps would be in a trash can, the answer is that ancient books, be they made of papyri or vellum, decay over time. Bits of pages, the final or initial pages in a codex, were very subject to loss: they would, over time, find their way to the floor and need to be picked up or pose a real fire hazard.”

    (Eh?? Does White imagine that when the monks saw a page fallen from a manuscript, they thought, “Hmm; we’d better burn this so that it does not catch on fire,” rather than, “Hmm; we’d better sew this back into the manuscript.”??)

    Another interesting new footnote is on page 52. There, he says that D. A. Waite says that some individuals just about worship Codex Sinaiticus, “after alleging, inaccurately, that before being found Aleph was about to be burned (one will note that the steward at St. Catherine’s kept the manuscript in his cell, wrapped in a red cloth, hardly the way one treats trash).”

    Perhaps someone should call the Dividing Line and explain to James White that (a) Tischendorf’s story about the monks at St. Catherine’s burning pages of codices is not true, as J. Rendel Harris knew very well, and (b) the “parchment scraps” were pages from Codex Sinaiticus. Then he might not feel the need to fabricate explanations to account for the parchment-burning alleged by Tischendorf.
    Followed by:

    I’m saying that he made up that footnote, and that the footnote is based on misconceptions. I am not calling him a liar, because the possibility that this footnote is based on his honest but incompetent misinterpretation of the evidence seems to be a viable alternative explanation. The “scraps” were not scraps; Tischendorf described them as “a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament,” and as “about forty-five sheets.” And the “trash can” was not a trash can; it was a basket. J. Rendel Harris visited St. Catherine’s, and was aware of the basket in question.
    Followed by a discussion of the "just call James White on his show" shell game:

    I just had a fascinating discussion with Rich Pierce, who idenitified himself as the call-screener for Dividing Line. He absolutely refused to put me on the air to engage the subject of the veracity of James White’s claims about Tischendorf’s discovery of Codex Sinaiticus (the “parchment scraps” anecdote in White’s “King James Only Controversy”). So everyone can drop the “You should call the Dividing Line and talk to James White; he welcomes your calls!” bit. It is a smokescreen; quite artificial.
    Rich Pierce (who has eliminated questioning posts on the aomin Facebook discussions) then gives a slightly different spin to the same events. James concluded:

    (b) Although I would have preferred to speak with James White on the air, I offered to speak with him off the air; this request was not granted....
    Oh: (d) The misleading nature of White’s description of Tischendorf’s initial encounter with pages from Codex Sinaiticus is not a rumor; it is demonstrable. So far, the only rumor I’ve heard is that the Dividing Line program will engage reasonable inquiries about the accuracy of certain statements made by James White; in my experience so far that rumor has turned out to be untrue.
    Maurice A. Robinson also contributed (emphasis added):

    I concur with Mr Snapp that James White’s description (KJV Only Controversy, 2nd ed., p. 56) of the finding of “some parchement scraps” fails to identify those “scraps” as being actually 43 nearly complete leaves from the OT of the Codex Sinaiticus itself (originally published by Tischendorf as the “Codex Friberico-Augustanus”).
    Only on the next page does White begin specific mention of Codex Sinaiticus, thus leaving the impression that the “scraps” described on the previous page were something other than leaves from the same MS, Codex Sinaiticus. This oversight definitely needs to be corrected.

    For a more complete description of the history and contents of this MS, see the Codex Sinaiticus website:
    http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/history.aspx
    For this simple and accurate request, Maurice Robinson got flak and blah-blah from Rich Pierce and responded:

    One still has to wonder why those original “parchment scraps” discovered by Tischendorf were not clearly identified in The KJV Only Controversy as containing 43 leaves from the OT portion of Codex Sinaiticus, so as not to leave the misleading impression that they might have been from some other MS? It is simply a matter of accuracy and integrity to make the facts crystal-clear on this point.
    There is no innuendo intended on my part (which would imply some sort of deliberate concealment or neglecting of data). I merely offered a legitimate comment that those initial 43 leaves discovered by Tischendorf properly should have been identified as being from Codex Sinaiticus — a fact the average lay reader of those pages as written would not be able to discern. And seriously, would an editor really demand changing a simple explanatory phrase such as “parchment scraps belonging to Codex Sinaiticus” in order for the book to get published? That scenario would seem odd on all counts (and no, I am hardly in league with Mr Snapp, as your other innuendo suggests, since we have our own sharp disagreements regarding textual issues). I only suggest that in any future edition the statement regarding the 43 leaves be clarified. Nothing more.
    ...I should also note that, among many other passages noted in my copy of the 2nd edition of The KJVO Controversy, this particular issue had long ago been marked as a matter that should be addressed when opportunity presented itself, whether in a review (something I have not done) or elsewhere.
    Maurice Robinson was apparently not aware of the earlier James White history on this Sinaiticus trash can issue (it was referenced by James Snapp in a later post in the thread) like the "any scholar.." boomerang attack by James White. Attacks that were all based on his confusion and ignorance and shoddy research on this matter. So Maurice Robinson simply asked for the book to get the matter straight.

    There follow two more posts by Nazaroo and one by James Snapp that are worthy of review.

    Ironically, the poster of #141 was quite aware of, and involved in, that whole thread.

    And still, today, no correction from James White.

    No retraction and apology to Douglas Stauffer. (Dave Hunt was mentioned as having been attacked in the same manner, he has passed away.)

    And, by his own standards, James White is still not worth reading.


    Steven Avery

  4. Default James Snapp summary on the KJV-Only forum.

    The final summary on that thread from James Snapp, well done. Emphasis added.

    =========================

    James Snapp, Jr. (mini-glitch of David Stauffer changed to Douglas Stauffer)

    ... I will offer a few more observations ...
    http://www.sinaimonastery.com/en/index.php?lid=107
    you can read the monks’ side of the story, and at
    http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/history.aspx
    there is a more detailed account, including statements about the certification of the donation of the codex to the Russians.

    Also, regarding James White’s previous claims about how Codex Sinaiticus was encountered by Tischendorf, I found a statement which appears to have been written by James White in 2006 at
    http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/dr-s...rs-book-12507/ .

    And in that post, he states,

    “I note in the blog article posting in a few hours a glaring historical error regarding Aleph.”
    He was referring to material written by Douglas Stauffer, which can still be found at
    http://www.learnthebible.org/bible_f...pt_to_rome.htm . In the blog-article to which he refers, James White focused on Stauffer’s statement that Sinaiticus was

    “discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai.”
    Stauffer’s statement is incorrect, not only because Tischendorf’s story that he found pages from Codex Sinaiticus in a basket, about to be burned, is extremely dubious, but because Tischendorf’s first encounter with pages from Codex Sinaiticus occurred in 1844, not in 1859.

    But if you read James White’s blog-entry, titled “Dr. Stauffer on Codex Sinaiticus” at http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1290 — where he said,

    “Any “scholar” who can’t even get this story straight is not really worth reading”
    — it will become clear that James White did not perceive that the material that he refers to as “some scraps of parchment” were pages from Codex Sinaiticus. White himself states, about Tischendorf,

    “While visiting the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, he noted some scraps of parchment in a basket that was due to be used to stoke the fires in the oven of the monastery.”
    Did you see that? White said that the contents of the basket were about to be burned in the oven! And in the same blog-entry, White said,

    “So as you can see, Sinaiticus was not found in a trash can.”
    There is no need to wonder about why James White denies that Sinaiticus was found in that basket: he did not realize that the same “scraps of parchment” which, according to James White, were “due to be used to stoke the fires in the oven,” were part of Codex Sinaiticus. Obviously James White was a bit confused. He was confused when he wrote his book; he was confused when he wrote the blog-entry on March 15, 2006, and he was confused during the White-Moorman debate. And he has generously shared this confusion with his readers.

    Not only is he confused, but he is confident, and this combination seems to have given him the ability to discern “The only reason Stauffer and those like him continue to repeat this story.” What is that reason that James White has discerned? It is, according to James White, because of “Its impact upon those ignorant of history and unlikely to actually look into it for themselves.”

    I disagree. Granting that Douglas Stauffer gave the wrong year, I think that the reason why Douglas Stauffer said that Tischendorf found Codex Sinaiticus in a trash can is that Douglas Stauffer believes Tischendorf’s claim that he found dismembered pages of Codex Sinaiticus in a basket, “destined for the fire.” White, in 2006, believed Tischendorf’s report, too (and earlier, when he wrote, and then revised, “The King James Only Controversy”). But James White did not perceive what Douglas Stauffer had perceived: that the contents of the basket were pages from Codex Sinaiticus.

    Somehow James White knew, in 2006, the real reason why Douglas Stauffer and others repeat the essence of what Tischendorf says in his composition, “Narrative of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript” (which is the opening chapter of Tischendorf’s book “When Were Our Gospels Written” which can be downloaded from Google Books for free). White does not say that their statements are the result of confusion, or haste, or a simple matter of confusing Tischendorf’s 1859 visit with his 1844 visit. No, White knows the real reason: “dishonesty.” He wrote on March 15, 2006,

    “But for anyone serious about the subject, such dishonesty destroys one’s credibility.”
    Is that not a charge of dishonesty?....

  5. Default reviewing the James White boomerang blunder


    CARM
    James White boomerang - any “scholar” who can’t even get this story straight ...
    reviewing the James White boomerang blunder
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...straight/page4

    Let us review this fascinating history.

    1) It is trivially easy to know that Tischendorf made the claim that the Sinaiticus ms. was found in a trash can, ready to be burned.
    (the fact that this was a Tischendorf fabrication is an auxiliary issue, his claim is still the public story.)

    2) Just about the only writer on the topic that is confused on this simple history is James White

    3) James White repeated his trash can denial in:
    a) discussions with David Hunt
    b) 1995 book
    c) 2006 accusations against Douglas Stauffer (still online)
    d) 2009 updated book
    e) 2011 debate with Jack Moorman

    4) To compound his error, from his own confusions, he said, in the Stauffer accusations, that people who made such errors (that he made)
    a) should not be read
    b) are dishonest and do not have credibility

    The boomerang attacks. These bogus attacks were particularly aimed against Douglas Stauffer, where James White made a series of false integrity, honest and credibility accusations. Since the error was all that of James White (Douglas Stauffer only had the wrong year, a minor glitch) we can say that, based on the standards of James White, James White should not be read, James White is dishonest and James White does not have any credibility. And beyond that, he is a false accuser of the brethren.

    5) A number of people, including James Snapp and Maurice Robinson, have tried to help correct this error.

    6) Rich Pierce, his admin, and James White have steadfastly refused correction. (May, 2016 update, trying once again, cordially, by email, to get this straightened out.)

    7) Various James White supporters, from his admin Rich Pierce to posters on the net, are so confused, so much blinded by their AV animus, that they can not take a simple stance for a trivially easy factual correction. They find themselves railing .. and looking for any possible diversion .. against the truth and integrity.

    My conclusion: this shows that there is a spiritual principality involved. Since there is no logical explanation for the shills and diversion attempts. The issues and history are exceedingly simple, the facts are crystal clear. And what should have been a trivially easy correction I believe ends up exposing hearts in rebellion. Nonetheless, the best path, correction now and retractions and apologies. True, Dave Hunt has passed, (correction should still go there), many of the people who have been misled or attacked by James White on this issue are alive.

    20+ years later - still better a correction now than never.
    Still better retractions and apologies now than never.

    =====================

    note: small changes made here to the CARM post

  6. Default discussions with James White lead to censorship by deletion of posts


    Placed on CARM.
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...=1#post7917222

    Tweaked here to add a url (CARM has a url limitation.) Plus CARM threads disappear after awhile.


    ================

    James White avoids simple back-and-forth written discussion on the internet. He had a try with the Puritanboard gentlemen in 2006 and faired poorly, or at best so-so. My sense is that he decided to avoid such discussions where his posts remain visible with the responses there as well.

    Since then, from what I have seen when White has discussions on the forums it is where Richard C. Pierce is the admin
    (Rich Pierce is the Chief Executive of aomin.org. I will conclude that they are more concerned with their image and donations than scholarly truth.) And they quickly remove difficult questions and block the individuals who asked the questions, especially when these have to do with what look to be errors presented by James White that need correction. (After seeing this occur once or twice, as during the discussion after the Jack Moorman debate, the pics from saved from the last time. Which was the Acts 8:37 discussion with Brandon Staggs.)

    Here is what James Snapp, Jr. wrote about this in April 19, 2014 on the:

    Facebook forum - King James Bible Debate:
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/permalink/10152073902236693/?comment_id=10152074415116693&comment_tracking={%2 2tn%22%3A%22R9%22}

    This picture is a composite of screenshots of the conversation Richard C Pierce and I were having about James White's recent video-response to a video by Brandon S. (Steven Avery had mentioned that his posts had been removed, so I thought it might be a good idea, however unlikely it seemed that anyone would want to remove my posts, to take screenshots.) As you can see, after a few posts, things weren't going so well for the argumentation White had used to minimize the testimony of Irenaeus and Cyprian about Acts 8:37. Richard C. Pierce's response, it seems, was . . . . delete the posts.

    Wowsers, Richard C Pierce; that was just a keystroke of genius. I am utterly unable to share my thoughts about the impression that makes regarding how strong your position must be, and about how serious you are when you invite people to discuss things like this.
    The pics are there of a good number of posts that were deleted by Pierce.

    Brandon Staggs really came out far better than White on the Acts 8:37 discussion in April, 2014 that was held in a back-and-forth video presentations, with no direct discussion. Brandon was helped by the fact that the verse is so clearly scripture.

    Acts 8:37
    And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
    And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.


    In the "any scholar" thread, James Snapp described his earlier August, 2011 attempt to have a discussion directly with James White, on air or off, about the Tischendorf "trash can" story.


    James White boomerang - any “scholar” who can’t even get this story straight ...
    the James White ongoing blunder
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...=1#post7913240

    James also revisits this in the 2014 Facebook discussion about the deleting of the Acts 8:37 posts.

    More of the 2011 discussion at:


    King James Only?
    James White vs. Will Kinney
    https://kjvonlydebate.com/2011/08/09...s-will-kinney/


    Steven Avery

  7. Default James Snapp 2014 summary of James White Sinaiticus bumbling and false accusing


    James Snapp put together a nice summary of this on April 19, 2014, which was placed on the King James Bible Debate forum, during a discussion about another topic.

    Also placed on CARM:

    summary of the James White boomerang attack
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...=1#post7937288

    And in case anyone is wondering about the second edition of White's book: he *still* says that Tischendorf found "parchment scraps" at St. Catherine's! The claim is on page 56 of the second edition: if you want, you can use the "Look Inside" feature at Amazon and search for the phrase "parchment scraps" to track it down:
    http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Onl.../dp/0764206052

    "What's this got to do with anything?" you ask? Well, it shows that after
    (1) I called James White's radio-show and explained to Richard Pierce the facts of the case, and
    (2) I made a video-lecture about Tischendorf and Codex Sinaiticus, which is still online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxTxALlZ6lE , describing, in small words, Tischendorf's account of his encounter with pages of Codex Sinaiticus (the same pages that White calls "parchment scraps"), and
    (3) White has had over a decade to conduct additional study and get the story straight, and
    (4) White has criticized Doug Stauffer for saying that Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus in a trash can, at http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.ph...ex-sinaiticus/

    either he has adamantly avoided researching the subject, or his research has been spectacularly bad.

    A few select quotations from James White:

    (Referring to Stauffer's claim) "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."

    White states that D. A. Waite alleged "inaccurately, that [Aleph] was about to be burned (one will note that the steward at St. Catherine’s kept the manuscript in his cell, wrapped in a red cloth, hardly the way in which one treats trash)."

    And: "So as you can see, Sinaiticus was not found in a trash can. It was clearly prized by its owner, and well cared for."

    I sifted through the A&O blog, looking for anything recent about Codex Sinaiticus (besides the debate with Chris Pinto). As far as I can tell, White still has not figured out that the "parchment scraps" that Tischendorf claimed to have found in a basket, about to be burned, = Codex Frederico-Augustus, which = a substantial section of what we now call Codex Sinaiticus.

    And: "The only reason Stauffer and those like him continue to repeat this story is for its impact upon those ignorant of history and unlikely to actually look into it for themselves. But for anyone serious about the subject, such dishonesty destroys one’s credibility."

    (The person whose credibility the story weakens is Tischendorf's; Stauffer was just rephrasing what Tischendorf claimed happened.)

    And: (Referring to Stauffer's statement that Sinaiticus was found in a trash can) "He cites from my book frequently, which means he knows this statement is factually untrue."

    Under normal circumstances, that last statement would be Exhibit A in The Case that James White Is Clueless About This. But he has given us one that may be more persuasive:

    "Any “scholar” who can’t even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest."

    I used to think that was overstating things a bit. But now I say,
    How
    true.
    This was on a thread titled:
    "ACTS 8:37 POSTS DELETED FROM JAMES WHITE ALPHA-OMEGA FORUM"

    Douglas Stauffer also send me a nice "thank you" for taking the time to document this history. It was the integrity attacks against Douglas Stauffer by James White that really made me want to get the information placed accurately and clearly.

    ==========================

    Also posted on the previous post on CARM:

    Note: I did send out an email to Richard Pierce, President of aomin.org, to, once again, see if they might want to reopen this study and make any proper corrections and retractions and apologies. And then sent out a second request, where I asked him to simply send an acknowledgement if they needed more time to respond. (The second request was today, May 15, 2016.)

    Better 10 or 20 years late than never.

    Steven Avery



  8. Default Alan Kurschner joins James White in the boomerang accusation blunder


    We also had Alan Kurschner, who is close to James White, make the same blunder accusation in 2013.
    I posted this in 2013 and even had correspondence with Kurschner, asking him to correct the error. He did not acknowledge any error and said he would write a blog post, which never happened. Today, May, 16, 2016, I sent another note.

    This is from my CARM post:


    CARM
    Tares Among Wheat research fiasco

    Alan Kurschner - ignorant, bumbling critic following James White errors

    Steven Avery - Nov. 25, 2013
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...=1#post5015785


    ....Alan Kurschner is not a particularly informed source on the matter, and lacks fundamental integrity. Here he accuses Chris Pinto of lying based on the ignorance of James White, against Chris Pinto.

    Chris Pinto and His Ignorant, Kooky Conspiracy
    Alan Kurschner - July 15, 2013
    http://www.alankurschner.com/2013/07/15/chris-pinto-and-his-ignorant-kooky-conspiracy/

    I want to respond to one documentary lie in Pinto's blurb. He writes:
    Tischendorf said he found the work in a rubbish basket at a Greek Orthodox monastery in Egypt.

    It was not found in a "rubbish basket." Just the contrary, it was prized and protected by its owner. To sell his DVDs, Pinto must take advantage of those ignorant of the historical facts. Here is a refutation to Pinto's claim from an excerpt in James White's book
    The King James Only Controversy:

    From my TC-Alternate post:

    It is amazing that Kurschner relies on the James White blunders to attempt to refute Chris Pinto. And worse, even to falsely accuse Pinto of lying based on the White blunders! (Which we know from the Jack Moorman debate have continued now for almost two decades.) Lot's of stuff could go back and forth with the Chris Pinto DVD, and the Simonides issues, we have had many discussions here. However, this Kurschner bumbling and false railing accusation is amazing.

    One source for helping unravel the blunders of James White on this topic is my post, which also works with the posts from James Snapp:


    [TC-Alternate-list] James White myths about Codex Sinaiticus
    Steven Avery - Feb 9, 2011

    In #3938 I give some of the history about the James White synapse disconnect, and that post has the excellent James Snapp review at bottom.


    James Snapp
    ... The thing to see here is that White's incomplete version of events is quite misleading; those who say that Sinaiticus was found in a wastebasket are not arbitrarily perpetuating a myth.
    They are repeating Tischendorf's own claim, made in the very composition to which White appeals! At the very least, if we take Tischendorf's story seriously at all, he initially found unbound pages of Sinaiticus in a dismembered state in a basket.

    Then we go to a post that documents that even the James White website has the information, from Colin Smith, that demonstrates that White is totally confused.


    [TC-Alternate-list] Daniel Wallace - proper concern about Tischendorf - James White myths re: Sinaiticus
    Steven Avery - Feb 12, 2011

    Now we go to the web site of James White:

    An Introduction to Textual Criticism:Part 6--The Challenge to the Received Text
    04/12/2008 - Colin Smith
    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2611
    Constantin von Tischendorf was an industrious and prolific textual scholar. He expended much energy hunting out manuscripts, ....while visiting the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai, he noticed some parchment leaves in a wastebasket. When he examined them he recognized the text as coming from the Greek Septuagint written in an early uncial script.
    According to Tischendorf, these parchment leaves were to be used for lighting the monastery oven, though,as Dr. Daniel Wallace has suggested, this might just be Tischendorf's embellishment to make himself sound more of a rescuer than a thief. Tischendorf warned the monks that the parchment was too valuable to use for kindling ....

    So, if James White and Alan Kurschner would read and understand the information on White's own site, they could avoid the blunders. And could avoid the false, railing accusation of lying made by Kurschner above .. all based on White's ignorance. (Kurschner is used as a White hatchet man, see Puritanboard.)

    An additional note: from referencing, Chris Pinto is clearly informed on the James Keith Elliott book, and I see no indication that Kurschner is so informed.

    Another additional note: The James White Tischendorf-trash fiasco is also referenced on another recent thread here.

    There is one point where James White makes a solid summary conclusion:


    any "scholar" who can't even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest
    - James White 3/15/2006
    And a couple of days later:

    CARM
    Tares Among Wheat research fiasco
    Kurshner and White bungling taking out the Tischendorf trash
    Steven Avery - 11-28-2013
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...=1#post5015947

    Since Kurshner bungled so badly in the false accusation of lying, about the Tischendorf trash claim, I tend to doubt that he can be trusted on anything on this topic. That is Sinaiticus 101 and Tischendorf 101.

    You really can not get around that bungling and railing false accusation, since it is in the article you posted.

    And remember the ultra-ironic boomerang:

    any "scholar" who can't even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest
    - James White 3/15/2006


    You would do better to acknowledge that bungling from White and the resulting false lying accusation from Kurschner than to pretend it is not there. Then your attack posture could try for some credibility.

    For you to obliquely defend a lying accusation that is only the White bungling, where Pinto was 100% right, makes your own position mush.
    These basics were repeated in #30 and #33 and more.

    ====

    In another thread I mentioned going through CARM threads that might get purged.


    #35 had a small correction about the Colin Smith article.
    #49 has info that could be incorporated on PBF.
    #51 is an earlier review of the Daniel Wallace talk
    #54 has Burgon, Harris, Beard (new thread on other historical comments)
    #63 from Robert Frazier has Daniel Wallace helpful text
    #64 and #67 #80 - SA - might be helpful
    #83 - make sure in thief section "
    they should be careful with him with regard to manuscripts. "#84 - REVIEW of White review of debate
    #85 - more White errors
    #86 - when did Tisch start the basket + #90
    #92 - Akriboo on palaeographic #191 198-SA**** 202 205 216 220* 223* 226
    #105 - false dichotomy

    #111 - debate review
    #146 - debate title and review - add
    NEW Kallinikos elements

    #155 157 159 - Syriac codex
    171 177
    204 second binding
    206 - palaeography - quote on style
    210 - my 2011 criticism of Simonides
    224 -
    Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Scrivener 233 - 238 Scrivener on TIschendorf
    229-230 - SA on Scrivener
    235 - *** the marks of greater age patent in the Codex Vaticanus; it looks older, and has suffered more from the ravages of time; none of its leaves seem by any means so fresh as do some portions of its rival."
    241 - ** Scrivener
    "Those who have not inspected the manuscript for themselves are scarcely entitled to express an opinion on a matter like this." (p. 17)
    260 - review 250s of Bill Brown - James White quotes



  9. Default how James White mangled the account


    CARM
    James White boomerang - any “scholar” who can’t even get this story straight ...
    how James White mangled the account

    Steven Avery - 5-20-2016
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...=1#post7952134

    Note also the summary at the post above:

    the error and false accusations are still uncorrected
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...=1#post7952134

    Any “scholar” who can’t even get this story straight is not really worth reading - James White
    =============

    One reason that White never got the story straight was that in his book White referenced Metzger's secondary source account, not the primary source account of Tischendorf. Yet even there, James White made changes to the Metzger account that worked to confuse his own understanding.

    This excerpt (emphasis added) is from the page above from White, and he only references Metzger:

    The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
    2nd ed. (Oxford: 1968), pp. 42-45.


    The story of how it was found (1)...While visiting the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, he noted some scraps of parchment in a basket that was due to be used to stoke the fires in the oven of the monastery. Upon looking at the scraps he discovered that they contained part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This was exactly what he was looking for, and so he asked if he could take the scraps to his room for examination, warning the monks that they should not be burning such items. His obvious excitement worried the monks, who became less than cooperative in providing further information about manuscripts at the monastery. Years passed by. Tischendorf attempted to find more manuscripts at the monastery in 1853, but to no avail. ... Six years later [1859] he visited yet once again ... From the closet in his cell he produced a manuscript, wrapped in a red cloth. The monk had no idea of the treasure he held in his hands, for this was none other than Codex Sinaiticus, which at that time was no less than 1,500 years old!
    (1) For a fuller rendition of the story, see, Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration 2nd ed. (Oxford: 1968), pp. 42-45.

    James White
    Now compare this to Metzger. I am using the 4th edition, from 2005, p. 62:

    The story of its discovery ...While visiting the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai, he chanced to see some leaves of parchment in a wastcbasket full of papers destined to ignite the fire for the oven. On examination, these proved to be part of a copy of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, written in an early Greek majuscule script. He retrieved from the basket no fewer than 43 such leaves, and the monk casually remarked that two basketloads of similarly discarded leaves had already been burned up!... In 1853. Tischendorf revisited the monastery of St. Catherine, hoping to acquire other portions of the same manuscript. .... In 1859, his travels look him back once more to Mount Sinai... produced from a closet in his cell a manuscript wrapped in red cloth. There, before the astonished scholar's eyes, lay the treasure that he had been longing to see.
    Bruce Metzger
    The change from "leaves" to "scraps" is a major blunder. The 43 leaves are actually in superb shape, and constitute the full Codex Friderico-Augustanus, and are not scraps. So this was one of three changes that James needed to create his own confusion using the secondary source.

    And by changing
    "acquire other portions of the same manuscript" to "find more manuscripts" he helped set the stage for his 20-year blunder.

    Then he changed
    "the treasure he had been longing to see" (the rest of the manuscript, the method of Metzger of keeping the story together) into "none other than Codex Sinaiticus".

    So James White had to work hard to mangle the Metzger account into his own version where the 1859 discovery is not recognized as the same manuscript as the 1844 leaves!

    Any “scholar” who can’t even get this story straight is not really worth reading - James White
    Steven Avery

  10. Default Jack Moorman debate: James White -> "read Constantine von Tischendorfs own first-hand account"

    Here is another irony of false accusation and shoddy scholarship.

    The debate with Jack Moorman:


    James White Debates Jack Moorman On Exclusive King James Onlyism
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTfiuksOwl4


    James White, Feb 2, 2011 debate with Jack Moorman
    Time 30:12-30:26

    “I did want to correct just one misapprehension. Sinaiticus was not found in or near a trashcan. That is a common myth, but it’s untrue. All you have to do is read Constantine von Tischendorf’s own first-hand account of his discovery of the manuscript. A monk brought it out of the closet, the cell, wrapped in red cloth. Folks, people in monasteries do not wrap garbage in red cloths, O.K? This is a text that had been in use for 1500 years.”
    The additional irony is talking about reading Tischendorf's first-hand account.
    When the 20 years ongoing blunder of James White is based on his shoddy scholarship where he did not reference the primary source account.

    1) using the secondary source of Bruce Metzger
    2) mangling the Metzger source in his quotes in his book
    3) referencing his mangled account in his own book as the authority.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •