Collation, Confusion & Erasmus
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 at 4:29PM NOTRadio By Christian J. Pinto
“I have escaped at last from the prisonhouse of Basel, in which I have done six years’ work in eight months.”
-- Desiderius Erasmus in a letter to Rimaclus, 1516
We have seen several comments from a few who listened to the debate last week, and were understandably confused by one of the points argued by James White. The polemic he latched on to at one point was the insistence that Constantine Simonides and his uncle would not have had time to “collate” the various manuscripts necessary to have produced the Codex Sinaiticus in 1840. Hearing that, some people assumed that Dr. White must know what he’s talking about. But did he?
On our Adullam Films facebook page, one listener wrote: “... White won the debate at the word ‘collate.’”
Upon questioning this person further, it became clear that he didn’t really understand what the collation process is, and how the variables involved make it impossible to draw a finite conclusion. When pressed further, he said of Dr. White: “… he’s the expert in those matters, so I trust his authority in that regard.”
We wrote him back and told him:
“... White did, in fact, end the debate with the word ‘collate’ as you said – because at that point, he revealed that he had no legitimate arguments against the story of Simonides.”
We also encouraged him to read the review of the debate written by Hiram Diaz. The confusion of this individual seems to have been part of Hiram’s concern. He (like many others) realized that White had produced absolutely no significant arguments, but that some would be deceived by the idea that he had expertise in these matters.
THE FATAL FLAW THEORY
It must be remembered that White spent several months prior to the debate arguing his “fatal flaw” theory against the story of Simonides. This theory in a nutshell was the idea that the unique readings found in Codex Sinaiticus could not have been known by Simonides, because those readings would only be confirmed in the 20th century once the papyri were discovered. However, White based his argument on assuming that Simonides only had access to the Moscow Bible and Codex Alexandrinus. He argued that neither of those manuscripts contained the unique readings in question. During the debate, I informed him that this was not the case, since Simonides also used an ancient Syriac Codex, and three additional manuscripts of ancient character. This was not only stated by Simonides in 1863, but the three ancient manuscripts were acknowledged by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1864. Clearly White had overlooked this.
His surprise became apparent during the debate, and I recognized that he had not done his homework. Then I revealed the fact that there are at least 100 manuscripts that have never been seen by Western scholars on Mt. Athos today, which is the location where Simonides claimed to have done the work. At this point, White’s “fatal flaw” theory was debunked.
Note: The records on Mt. Athos confirm that Simonides was there during the time period he described, as noted by James Farrer in his book, Literary Forgeries.
During the Q&A it became clear that White has never been to Mount Athos, has never examined the manuscripts in question, and has absolutely no way whatsoever of knowing what the readings in those texts might be. His argument was based on assuming things he had not properly researched, and that he cannot possibly know.
From there, he moved on to his collation argument. But once you understand what he attempted to argue, you will realize the intangible nature of his assertion.
UNDERSTANDING COLLATION
The word collate simply means to examine and compare in order to note points of agreement and disagreement. Scholars who are developing a single text for a Bible translation, will collate various readings from different manuscripts, decide which readings they believe are the most accurate, and then produce a single text as a result.
Believe it or not, the process of collation is probably something that most people who are reading this article have done in other ways. If you have ever written a term paper, an essay, an article for the web, or anything that involves research and analysis of data – then you have engaged in collation along the way.
For example, let’s say you were working on an article about World War II, and you were reading five or six different books on the subject. You analyze and compare the different histories, noting the agreements and disagreements of the historians. Then you produce your article as a result. How long would it take you to do this? A few hours? A few days? Or a few weeks? Depending on how in depth you wanted to go, it might take months. It also depends on how much you knew about the subject matter beforehand. How many quotes do you plan to use? How familiar were you with the books in question before you started? How many hours a day will be dedicated to the work?
There are a whole variety of variants that would affect the time necessary to complete the task. But is there really an exact time limit? Can someone declare, “It is impossible to write a paper on World War II within seven days?” Is that a firm rule? Obviously not. But that was the argument of James White in a nutshell. He argued the collation issue as though there was some sort of exact time frame in which such things are accomplished.
Charles Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol within six weeks. Most people might think that producing such a timeless classic would have required far greater effort, and much more time. But such was not the case.
An even better example (quoted at the beginning of our article) is the first edition Greek New Testament produced by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. When Erasmus produced his first edition, he published it in parallel columns, with Greek on one side and Latin on the other. His New Testament contained twice the text of an ordinary Bible (for the New Testament, that is). But how long did it take him?
In June of that year, Erasmus wrote to his friend Rimaclus:
“I have escaped at last from the prisonhouse of Basel, in which I have done six years’ work in eight months.”
(Source: The Epistles of Erasmus, Volume II, p. 264)
Erasmus claimed he did the equivalent of six years worth of work in just eight months. Shouldn’t that be impossible? Clearly it was not. Furthermore, the hasty production of his first edition is the very reason it is said to have contained many errors. This is significant, because the Codex Sinaiticus is known for its massive number of errors and corrections – which would make all the sense in the world if it were done quickly.
NOTE: Thankfully, it was his second edition (1519) that was used by Luther, and his third edition (1522) that was used by William Tyndale.
THE COLLATION OF SIMONIDES & HIS UNCLE
What has been continuously absent from White’s arguments against Simonides is any mention of a time frame. He insists that there was “not enough time,” but he never tells us how much time they had. Does he even know?
Thankfully, we have historic records to look to.
According to the testimony of Simonides in The Guardian newspaper (Sept. 3, 1862) he claimed that he began the work “about the end of the year 1839.” We assume that he is referring to the month of December. Then he tells his story of how the work was prepared and carried out by he and his uncle. Once he finished, he delivered the work to the bookbinders to have the pages bound. Finally, he delivers the work to the Bishop of St. Catherine’s Monastery, and received a letter of acknowledgement from him in August of 1841. In total, the entire project from concept to delivery encompassed a period of about 20 months.
Elsewhere in his letters, Simonides wrote:
“I know that I wrote 1,205 pages in eight months, and ceased from the work only because the skins failed.”
(Source: The Journal of Sacred Literature, April 1863)
The reference to “skins” has to do with the fact that vellum parchment is made from animal skins. As such, the work of writing out the manuscript took eight months in total. That leaves twelve months to be accounted for.
Then we must take into account the time it took for him to have the volume bound by the bookbinders, his travel time to visit the Bishop of St. Catherine’s, and then his return and final delivery of the work. The delivery happened presumably toward the beginning of August, since the letter of acknowledgment was dated August 13th. To accomplish the bookbinding, travel, etc., let us estimate three months. We are forced to estimate this because a more exact time frame is not given. However, based on this conservative estimate, that leaves approximately nine months available for the work of collation.
Hence, what White is telling us is that nine months was too short a period for Simonides and his uncle to have analyzed and compared various manuscripts (even though his uncle had collated half the manuscripts "long before" they began this process, as stated by Simonides). Yet, in total, they had more than twice as much time as Desiderius Eramus needed to finish his first edition of 1516.
Consequently, we believe there is no logical reason to accept White’s assertions. He has attempted to present an intangible variant as though it were an immovable fact; yet the witness of history is clearly against him. Despite his best efforts, the story of Simonides must remain an unsolved mystery.
CJP
Reader Comments (5)
James White's dismissals of facts remind me a lot of how evolutionists and atheists respond in discussions I have with them. "That can't be true!" "Why?" "It's stupid!" "Why is it stupid?" "Because it's stupid!"...
Thank you again, Chris, for such detailed information. It helps to have dates and records. As you've said, White is simply arguing with the historic record and making himself look more and more foolish.
Blessings to you!
Very good article.
thanks, brother Chris
would you please make a thorough document about Westcott and Hort. in a way to nail them down.
I think this is much needed.
thank you to all your diligent team
I second that request, Disciple. :)