Simonides, a man who claimed to have formed what is now known as Codex Sinaiticus.
[Here is the debate I will be referencing throughout this blog post.]
[And here are my final thoughts on the debate.]
Although I enjoy listening to debates, I’m not a big fan of them. This may sound contradictory, so let me explain. On the one hand, debates are a great way to become familiar with different points of view, be they non-Christian or Christian. In this respect, I appreciate the knowledge that can be gained from assessing each point and counterpoint making up the debate. However, on the other hand, personality can often take the place of sound reasoning. The more aggressively one pursues his debate opponent, for instance, the stronger he appears to the audience, as one who is in the right. Why? Because his personality trumps the weakness of his argumentation. Thus, debates can swing in the favor of men who present well, as opposed to presenting their case well.
The debate over whether or not Codex Sinaiticus is a modern forgery, a debate between James White and Chris Pinto was, unfortunately, one that made me dislike debates even more. Before I listened to the background information that Pinto presented in his documentary and on his podcast/radio show, I was pretty sure James White’s statements about Pinto’s ideas being far-fetched and based on loose threads woven together by conspiracy were right. But when the debate took place a couple nights ago, I saw that Dr. White was wrong. Pinto presented documented history that challenged the official story regarding Simonides (i.e. the man who claimed to have penned Codex Sinaiticus); Dr. White, however, did not refute Pinto’s challenge.
Dr. White appealed to authority, asking Pinto if he had ever collated manuscripts of the Bible or if he was competent in Greek, in an attempt to show that Pinto’s ignorance was the only justification he had for believing that the case of Simonides was not a closed case. But this kind of reasoning is fallacious. Pinto was not arguing from the standpoint of one who knew either the collation process or was competent in, if not a scholar of, koine Greek. His credentials in these two fields (i.e. manuscript collation and ancient Greek) is completely irrelevant. Pinto’s argument was drawn from historical records regarding the events and persons surrounding Codex Sinaiticus. Dr. White, therefore, had no reason to ask for such credentials.
If the historical data Pinto presented are to be jettisoned, then Dr. White should have presented an argument in favor of ditching the historical sources to which Pinto made reference. But Dr. White did no such thing.
Also, Dr. White reduced Pinto’s cogent reasoning to a “conspiracy theory,” a term which is often used in American media to dismiss viewpoints that contradict the official story. And Dr. White used it in just that way. In other words, Dr. White uncritically dismissed Pinto’s argument to a “conspiracy theory.”
In short, here are the problems I had with the debate: 1. Dr. White argued fallaciously, appealing to authority when no such appeal was relevant to the matter at hand. 2. Dr. White made assertions, central to his argument, that cannot be empirically verified. For instance, he claimed that the task of manuscript collation could not be done by a nineteen year old. This is not an argument, nor is it an empirically verifiable fact, as it is a universal proposition. There are many people in history who have accomplished great things at even younger ages. Are these people historical fictions? If they are real people, then are the historical accounts of their great abilities to be dismissed as “conspiracy theories” or overblown accounts of otherwise “normal” individuals? This is not a point that can be taken very seriously, moreover, considering the renown that Simonides had for his unusual intellectual gifts as a young man.
Whether or not he was a prodigy, I don’t know. However, when there is evidence of men speaking highly of Simonides’ superior intellectual endowments, and there is no evidence to prove that a nineteen year old cannot collate biblical manuscripts and form a unique copy of the Bible from those collated texts, the testimony of writers contemporaneous with Simonides actually holds weight, where Dr. White’s assertion has none. Chris Pinto presented a logically cogent case for his position.
Dr. James White neither presented a logically cogent case, nor did he succeed in refuting Pinto’s position. Again, Pinto presented actual historical documentation that drills numerous holes into the “official” story regarding Simonides, whereas Dr. White simply dismissed Pinto’s sources, failing to provide counter evidence to Pinto’s argument. Consequently, it is Pinto, in my opinion, who won the debate. And what is troubling to me is that many will not (i.)be able to identify Dr. White’s fallacious reasoning and (ii.)will depend on personalities in their assessment of the debate.
-h.
A : A 
I found your review to be dead on accurate. I just finished listening to the debate. Pinto wasn’t trying to smoke White, yet he ended up doing just that. White brought nothing to this debate.
LikeLike
Hi Hiram,
An excellent review. You really understand the situation, i.e the real issues rather than the pseudo-issues and non-issues.
And I have discussed many of these issues on CARM on a group of four threads.
Tares Among Wheat research fiasco
the New Finds, a sealed room with Sinaiticus leaves before Tischendorf and Simonides?
Alpha Omega responds to Chris Pinto’s post debate comments.
Literary Forgeries by James Anson Farrer
And I will plan on quoting from your blog there shortly, although you are invited to join there and post it directly.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
LikeLike
Hiram, greetings.
Today I send the url to your blog over to Chris and he says “thank you” for the insights. And would like to post your astute review on this website. :)
My fav spot:
“Pinto’s argument was drawn from historical records regarding the events and persons surrounding Codex Sinaiticus. Dr. White, therefore, had no reason to ask for such credentials. If the historical data Pinto presented are to be jettisoned, then Dr. White should have presented an argument in favor of ditching the historical sources to which Pinto made reference. But Dr. White did no such thing.”
Steven
LikeLike
I truly don’t get their hatred for the textus receptus. Has it not for hundreds of years brought countless people to Christ? I was told on facebook by some of James White supporters that the TR was demonic in origin…their reasoning is beyond belief.
LikeLike
They don’t hate the Textus Receptus, nor do they see it as the absolute perfect translation that King James Onlyist claim it to be. James White would never claim that the TR is demonic in origin. The TR was based on the best manuscripts of that time. Since then, we have many more manuscripts, and many earlier manuscripts, which allow us to determine more accurately what the original writers wrote.
LikeLike
The only problem I have with critical text supporters is that they automatically assume “older= more accurate”. You can not prove that unless you have the autograph to compare it to in order to determine its accuracy.
LikeLike
Vincent, I cannot fathom that any of James White’s supporters would have stated that the Textus Receptus was demonic in origin. Can you provide any evidence of this?
LikeLike
Here is a screenshot of what I mean…
LikeLike
Vincent, I asked you to show me evidence that any of James White supporters have said that the Textux Receptus itself is demonic in origin. That is not what you showed me. You showed me a comment by someone who wrote that the rabid arguments for KJV-Onlyism/TR-Onlyism seem to be demonic in origin, in that they cause so much confusion. That’s not the same thing.
And I actually agree with that comment you posted, because the arguments for KJVO/TRO do cause confusion and division in the body of Christ (i.e. the arguments work to divide us up between those who supposedly “get” that only the KJV/TR are “safe” to read and the rest of us poor Christians who don’t recognize they’ve been deceived by the vast Jesuit conspiracy to adulterate the word of God and only read some poor, lesser version). I would go even further and say that all of the people I have dealt with who are KJVO/TRO come across as very angry and suspicious, some to the point of paranoia. I’m not saying they’re all that way, just that all of them that I have dealt with have been that way. But God didn’t mean for us to be suspicious and angry, we’re meant to be marked by love, among other attributes.
LikeLike
And Dr. White used it in just that way. In other words, Dr. White uncritically dismissed Pinto’s argument to a “conspiracy theory.”
That’s because it IS a conspiracy theory.
Pinto’s documentary, which I have watched now TWO times begins with the bias that the TR/KJV is the only true Protestant Bible and any and all modern translations translated from other manuscripts are corrupted. He admitted to such after being pressed during the cross examination.
Thus, in order to prove his bias, the players involved with putting together modern textual apparatuses for translating modern version, Tischendorf, Hort, Westcott, etc, must be turned into nefarious, bad people with hidden agendas, ie, bent on destroying “Sola Scriptura.”
He then takes the Jesuit order and pours into them powers and abilities beyond that of mortal men. They control the universities, the media, have agents infiltrated at every level of government, etc. One has to wonder what happened to the JOOS and their sphere of influence.
He then takes some visit Tischendorf made to the Vatican to examine manuscripts and tells people it really was a cover for him to get his marching orders from the pope and his minions, and then he latches on to the bogus claims of a conman who hated the fact that Tischendorf exposed his con in Germany thus causing him to lose his 2,000 thalers and thus wrote a letter to the Guardian claiming that it is he who really created the codex with his uncle.
In spite of ALL the historians, including Farrer that Steven keeps citing as some unanswerable expert, saying that Simonides was a lying conman, Pinto still carries on as if there is something to this story.
What you all are missing is the reality of how manuscripts like Sinaiticus are produced. That is what White demonstrated solidly when he began quizzing Pinto about the collation of manuscripts. It does not matter if Simonides had three imaginary manuscripts no one has ever seen to explain the Alexandrian readings, or whether or not some ancient catalog existed at St Catherine’s identifying Sinaiticus. The raw fact of the matter is, a 19 year-old kid and an aged uncle cannot possibly collate a codex on the level as Sinaiticus in the amount of time Simonides claimed he did, and give it the appearance of having multiple hand writings. It is pure fantasy. And if you are inclined to believe TR/KJV onlyism, I guess you are prone to believe anything.
LikeLike
Hey fivepointer,
I just want to say firstly that I’m not a KJV onlyist. So I don’t approach the debate from that angle. My main disappointment was with Dr. White’s poor argumentation.
Now, concerning to your points…
1. “That’s because it IS a conspiracy theory.”
In the context of the debate, Pinto didn’t argue a conspiracy. The information presented in the film is helpful to understanding the historical context in which the events surrounding Codex Sinaiticus took place.
2. “Pinto’s documentary, which I have watched now TWO times begins with the bias that the TR/KJV is the only true Protestant Bible and any and all modern translations translated from other manuscripts are corrupted. He admitted to such after being pressed during the cross examination.”
This was, unfortunately, one of the points of the debate that was painful to listen to. Here’s why:
Pinto may be a KJV onlyist, and that may further underlie his distrust of Codex Sinaiticus, but that doesn’t mean the historical information which Pinto presented is somehow not worthy of consideration or further refutation, if it indeed has been refuted.
3, “That is what White demonstrated solidly when he began quizzing Pinto about the collation of manuscripts. It does not matter if Simonides had three imaginary manuscripts no one has ever seen to explain the Alexandrian readings, or whether or not some ancient catalog existed at St Catherine’s identifying Sinaiticus. The raw fact of the matter is, a 19 year-old kid and an aged uncle cannot possibly collate a codex on the level as Sinaiticus in the amount of time Simonides claimed he did, and give it the appearance of having multiple hand writings. It is pure fantasy. And if you are inclined to believe TR/KJV onlyism, I guess you are prone to believe anything.”
This is where Dr. White was wrong.
Pinto’s inexperience with, or ignorance of, manuscript collation is irrelevant. Pinto presented a historical case for his position. Dr. White didn’t refute that case.
Regarding Simonides and his uncle, it is false to say that there is absolutely no way they could have done what Simonides claims. I’m not saying, mind you, that they actually did do what he claims.
I am saying that it is false to identify Simonides’ claims as “pure fantasy.”
LikeLike
Hi,
Hiram, you understand the genetic fallacy, those taking the contra position, like Fred Butler, clearly do not, on that point they continually stumble and bumble. Then they continually misrepresent the actual positions of people, simply to apply their own genetic fallacy.
As for James Anson Farrer, what he said was very significant, misunderstood by James White and Fred Butler, and I discuss that on the CARM thread:
Literary Forgeries by James Anson Farrer
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?171789-Literary-Forgeries-by-James-Anson-Farrer
And there is a bit of an irony, the contra argument essentially comes down to:
“Simonides could not produce a deceptive, or forgery, manuscript” (which is what his opponents said his claims amounted to, not simply a give) – “because he was at times a forger.” :)
That is why the actual historical issues come to the forefront.
While there are potential scribal and textual arguments to be made for Sinaiticus 4th-century authenticity, James White actually did a very poor job with those arguments. This is a bit too complex for here, it is in CARM threads, and I may do one specially on the topic.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
LikeLike
In the context of the debate, Pinto didn’t argue a conspiracy. The information presented in the film is helpful to understanding the historical context in which the events surrounding Codex Sinaiticus took place.
Yes. He did. You and I must have heard two entirely different things, then. The Simonides “affair” is irrelevant to the historical context surrounding Codex Sinaiticus.
but that doesn’t mean the historical information which Pinto presented is somehow not worthy of consideration or further refutation, if it indeed has been refuted.
The historical information when read in its entirety minus the cherry-picked citations Pinto spins to his liking refutes Pinto’s film. Take the time to read those works he claims to use. Most of them are online at google books. Even a lot of the journal articles as well as the Guardian newspaper editorials are there. Even Farrar, who Steven again cites as if he knows what he is talking about, refutes Pinto’s thesis. It’s a joke.
Pinto’s inexperience with, or ignorance of, manuscript collation is irrelevant. Pinto presented a historical case for his position. Dr. White didn’t refute that case.
No. It is very relevant. Because his admission as to his ignorance on these matters plays heavily to the fact that he is picking and choosing those items he believes supports his thesis.
If he had actually done his homework, called in other experts rather than the handful of KJVO apologists that he interviewed, he would have saved himself the time, money, and embarrassment of putting together such a worthless documentary that is devoid of any meaningful fact. If he knew the work necessary in collating manuscripts to make a working, textual apparatus, as well as the alleged manuscripts Simonides’s claimed to use, he would have immediately recognized that every historian who has ever written on this subject and identified him as a conman, were in fact right.
He did not present a historical case for his position. He presented his warped, historical revisionist case for his position. That is why I liken him unto David Barton and his recasting of Jefferson and all of his views of an alleged pre-colonial Christianity. Contrary to what you believe, and under the facts of what the Codex is, he and his uncle could not produce a manuscript of its size in the time he claims to have done it. If you want to believe it against all facts and evidence that say otherwise, that’s your prerogative. Just know you are standing in the loony bin with Peter Ruckman, Jack Chick, and Gail Riplinger.
LikeLike
fivepointer,
You wrote:
“He did not present a historical case for his position. He presented his warped, historical revisionist case for his position. That is why I liken him unto David Barton and his recasting of Jefferson and all of his views of an alleged pre-colonial Christianity.”
If Pinto used historical documents, then he presented a historical case for his position. This isn’t to say that his argument was historically accurate, nor is it to say his argument was historically inaccurate. I’m identifying the kind of argument he presented.
Historical simply refers to the category, it is not a value judgment.
You also wrote:
“Contrary to what you believe, and under the facts of what the Codex is, he and his uncle could not produce a manuscript of its size in the time he claims to have done it. If you want to believe it against all facts and evidence that say otherwise, that’s your prerogative. Just know you are standing in the loony bin with Peter Ruckman, Jack Chick, and Gail Riplinger.”
One cannot validly reach a universal conclusion via inductive reasoning. Words like “cannot” and “impossible” are universal in their scope. They, therefore, require that the one arguing that “x is impossible” or “x cannot be done” be omniscient, seeing as one cannot know the capabilities of ALL men – past, present and future – and, therefore, cannot infer a universal conclusion from particular premises.
Is it more likely than not that Simonides did not do the things he claimed?
Perhaps.
I don’t know.
No one can say that they Know.
I would appreciate not being thrown into the mix with Riplinger and Chick, btw. My reasons for writing what I have written are stated clearly in this post and my latest post on the matter.
-h.
LikeLike
We have dealt with several of these erroneous points brought up by Butler (.5 Pinter, above) http://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/chris-pinto-vs-james-white/
Butler seems to hang his hat on the fact that Simonides was a con man, and that therefore raps up the case. There’s one glaring problem with this accusation regardless of how true it is: It is much easier to con a person in private THEN TO CON A MAN PUBLICLY. Tischendorf had every opportunity to prove Simonides wrong by simply showing up with the original script he possessed and the whole world would have known that Simonides was a liar. But after doing this ONCE ALREADY over the debate with the Shepherd of Hermas, wherein Tischendorf had to publicly recant his accusations against Simonides for FALSELY ACCUSING HIM OF FORGERY, it was obvious that Tishy did not want to endevour upon further embarrassment.
Butler’s argument is why the law has rules of evidence about prior bad acts. Prior bad acts in and of themselves do not prove that the instant case follows that pattern. They may be helpful in establishing motive and habitual patterns, but the accusation itself still needs to be proven, and neither Tischendorf, nor White, nor Butler ever proved that Simonides was lying, and as I said, Tischendorf COULD HAVE proved it by showing up to the debate.
And the question that gets ignored by all of White’s ilk, is how would White have responded if someone failed to show up to one of HIS debates? If there is ANY question about how White would criticize his opponents “no-show” as a tacit admission of guilt, just take 2 minutes to see what he says about Ergun Caner and Caner’s “Jihad Against Christianity”. Yet neither White nor his stormtroopers apply this logic consistently when Tischendorf refused to prove Simonides wrong.
Butler says, “The historical information when read in its entirety minus the cherry-picked citations Pinto spins to his liking refutes Pinto’s film.” And yet Butler wants us all to focus ONLY on Farrer’s NEGATIVE opinions of Simonides which is what? That Simonides was a known forger? THAT POINT WAS CONCEDED BY PINTO. If that fact is therefore known to Butler, then what is the point of beating a dead horse to a point that is not in contention? The OBVIOUS answer to that is that Butler wants everyone to agree with the negative comments as the trump card against the evidence in favor of Simonides story. This is what White and Fred call “BIAS”, yet it doesn’t apply to them. Fred and White themselves have used ONE cherry-picked comment to rebut every other reference made from Farrer and ignoring the conclusion that Farrer came to about the whole affair IN SPITE OF his one cherry-picked statement about Simonides “forgeries” (None of which he was convicted of, by the way).
Butler continues to poison the well, “If he had actually done his homework, called in other experts rather than the handful of KJVO apologists that he interviewed,” Did you actually see all the folks he interviewed? NOT ALL OF THEM WERE KJVO. Certainly not D.A. Waite (the only scholar that you could rightly claim in the video that actually supports the KJV but is not KJVO). An over exaggeration by Butler.
However, what does this say about Butler and conspiracy theories? Is he saying that Pinto purposely interviewed ONLY KJVO experts in order to slight the opposition? That sounds like a CONSPIRACY to me! Furthermore, the idea of the film was to offer the UNTOLD story, not to present all the same repeated facts found in every other anti KIng James and Textus Receptus publication or website out there. When Fred Butler posted a raving review of the Star Wars and Batman movies, did he ALSO give the occultic backgrounds of the producers and creators of those films? Well come on Fred, let’s have some honest reporting here, if you’re gonna give reviews about Batman, then at least tell the whole story about the beliefs of the people that made the films. And if you don’t know their stories, well then shame on you for doing such poor research before giving those movies a thumbs up!
And they couldn’t have collated the manuscripts? HOW DO YOU KNOW? That theory is mere speculation. When was the last time you collated any manuscripts? Erasmus did it by himself in 4 years and produced SEVERAL Greek and Latin New Testaments. You have no idea what his uncles skill level was or how many additional people were helping or what manuscripts were already collated when Simonides started his project. Your accusation is just as much an argument from silence as what you accuse Pinto of, of which actually yours is based on far greater speculation.
“He’s picking and choosing what he thinks supports his thesis”. WHO DOESN’T? When I write about the Trinity, I pick and choose the verses that I know support the Godhead. Must I always present how a Jehovah’s Witness views the Trinity in order to claim that my article is unbiased? You already complained that the movie was longer than your favorite Batman trilogy, Lord of the Rings or whatever ungodly movie it is you subscribe to, if Chris would have added anymore, you would complained that it was FOUR hours long instead of THREE.
And furthermore, have YOU or White ever given a satisfactory historical explanation of the Sinaiticus WITHOUT the Simonides story? James White said on pages 32-33 of his KJV Controversy book that Tischendorf found the scraps in a basket, and told the monks not to burn them. But now he criticizes the story of the Sinaiticus being found in a “waste basket”. Even without the details of the Simonides controversy, you still couldn’t give a logical explanation for Tischendorf’s “find” if you were given free tickets for life to any future Batman sequels. The very existence and how the Sinaiticus was found in itself WITHOUT the Simonides claims is admittedly a “controversial matter” (White, KJV Controversy, page 33). Not to mention we could really discuss the history of P46, P75 and several other spurious papyri, but hey, you can have your 45-48 mss/MSS mountain of evidence against the 5200 that support the TR/KJV (which includes ALL of the lectionairies of which NONE support the modern versions) and parade with the rest of the liberals who always use a minority conflict to legislate against an entire population (for example [for those who may be logically impaired]: a court throwing prayer out of all schools because one person complains that it offends them against the millions who believe in God. New laws that reinterpret the definition of marriage because a small handful of sodomites are offended. Take less than 100 manuscripts and overthrow the majority of manuscripts used by Christ honoring God fearing soul winning churches for 1800 years).
And I find it interesting when it comes to slandering KJVO, you always pick the most controversial figures to compare them all to (Riplinger, Ruckman, and Chick). And yet how many churches have you started or missionaries have you sent out and supported compared to Ruckman? You may not like Jack Chick, but how many gospel tracts have you published that have ever brought anyone to Christ? While you thumb your nose at fundamentalists, those King James Only Baptists are preaching in the streets, knocking door-to-door, and getting murdered by antagonists to Christianity in foreign countries while you sit at your desk playing with your light saber reading comic books.
LikeLike
*Correction to the above: I should have added Sam Gipp and I think perhaps one other who are KJVO. Nevertheless, Butler gave the impression that all of the scholars interviewed were all KJVO. Not sure when the BBC became KJVO, but I digress.
LikeLike
You forgot to mention Scot McKendrick and Juan Garces. I’m certain they are not KJVO.
LikeLike
You all may want to read this. Deal with the points raised about collation and you’ll understand why Pinto did a major faceplant. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2013/12/17/chris-pinto-debate-summary-turretinfan/
LikeLike
Hi,
The “collation” issue to try to demonstrate Sinaiticus authenticity is abysmally weak. It is covered by Chris Pinto in an article here:
Collation, Confusion and Erasmus
http://www.noiseofthunder.com/articles/2013/12/17/collation-confusion-erasmus.html
In addition James Snapp (not accepting SImonides involvement, yet far sharper than James White) and myself (believing there is enough smoke for a sold inquiry into Sinaiticus authenticity) have hashed out some more nuanced points in a Facebook discussion. Including the use of printed text (e.g. Griesbach was easily available) as the starting point in a collation: While this takes you to my Facebook page, you can go from there to the NT Textual Criticism forum.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/574551035965234/
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
LikeLike
Note: that takes you right to the NT Textual Criticism page. Good. You are not trapped on my page :) .
LikeLike
Good day, I know very little about this topic, except having watched the Tares Among the Wheat documentary and read some blog postings online about it.
* Regarding Constantine von Tischendorf’s story
1) Was it common practice for monks to burn manuscripts? (From the little I’ve read about monks, I thought they highly valued their library.)
2) Knowing how valuable his find was, how come it took Tischendorf so long (I think 15yrs?) to get the rest of it? Especially in light of his saying the monks there were burning manuscripts. Wouldn’t that mean then he needed to go back there immediately to get the rest of it before it was too late, not take (15yrs?) to get the rest?
3) How come other scholars of the day when they heard Tischendorf’s story about these monks burning ancient manuscripts, that they did not immediately go to this monastery to rescue other ancient manuscripts in jeopardy of being burned?
4) How did Tischendorf get the financing for his trips?
* Regarding Constantine Simonides
From what I could read about him, it pretty much all states the same thing. Simonides was a master conman, a master forger. That for years, many times he had successfully sold manuscripts for lots of money to wealthy individuals, universities, etc., and that it was only later that the person/university discovered the manuscript to be a forgery.
1) Is this true about Simonides? Meaning were the critics stating this unaffiliated with each other (in that they each came to their own separate conclusion about Simonides) or was it a few critics stating this about Simonides, and then other people just repeating what they said of him?
2) If it is true that Simonides truly was an incredible master forger that to this day, his manuscripts are still being debated as forgeries (even as recently as 2008, example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides), wouldn’t that actually then strengthen Simonides story? Meaning, wouldn’t that prove he is one of the only persons, if not the only, who could create a manuscript that looked so genuine that it fooled experts?
* Regarding the Jesuit/Roman Catholic “conspiracy” supposedly motivating all of this
1) In what specific ways has Codex Sinaticus either strengthened or weakened Roman Catholic doctrine in comparison to previously accepted manuscripts? (I’m looking for Scripture references of before Codex Sinaticus and then how that verse changed after Codex Sinaticus.)
I hope you guys still follow this blog and have info about my questions. If so, please answer them I would very much like to know the answers. Thank you.
(PS: In case no one follows this posting any longer, I’m going to repost this on other websites in hopes of getting some clarity.)
LikeLike
I have been listening to the debate. I assume you are a Chris Pinto fan, because your quotation of James White and collation of manuscripts is out of context and a complete lie. Did you listen to the debate? James White mentioned that this Simonides was a very young man, and he pointed to the collation of manuscripts and the historical context of Simonides’ day to suggest the unlikelihood that this young man could have done the work of collation in such a short time.
You really should edit your article, because that’s just a lie. Purposeful or not. It’s make Chris Pinto hard to believe if his followers will completely mishandle content… as James White states Chris Pinto himself has.
LikeLike
Adam, I’ve been a James White fan for years, since before I had ever heard of Chris Pinto. There is much that I appreciate about Pinto’s work, but I don’t agree with other things that he has said.
Now, I’m not trying to be rude here but a “lie” is, by definition, something one does on purpose. It is a purposeful presentation of something as true when it is, in fact, not true.
So I didn’t lie on purpose; and lying on accident is a contradiction in terms.
That being said, I listened to the debate and I stand by what I said in this article. Dr. White and Pinto were arguing in two different ways. This happens. When it does happen, however, one must adjust his arguments so as to be able to address and refute his opponent in a manner that is not fallacious.
Dr. White didn’t do this. He made an illegitimate appeal to authority. I can’t change the rules of logical inference so as to be able to not criticize one of my favorite teachers.
This does not mean that White’s point was false In the field of textual critical arguments for the authenticity of Code-Sinaiticus I would say that White has some really good points.
Moreover, I would defer to his judgment on these matters any day and encourage others to do the same. I’m not a textual critical scholar.
All I am is a believer who is concerned with, among my other apologetical concerns, the nature of apologetical argumentation.
Understanding how one has failed or succeeded in presenting a logically cogent case for one’s position is very important and, Scripture teaches, is part and parcel of our santification as grow in our capacity to destroy lofty arguments raised against the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ.
I’m not attacking Dr. White, but I am pointing out something that disappointed me about the debate.
An illegitimate appeal to authority is a fallacy, no matter how correct one’s conclusions reached by that fallacious mode of reasoning are.
What is an illegitimate appeal to authority?
“In an appeal to authority, the opinion of someone famous or accomplished in another area of expertise is supposed to guarantee the truth of a conclusion.”
–http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06a.htm
By arguing from the basis of textual critical scholarship surrounding the Codex itself against the historical documentation that Pinto used as his argument’s foundation, Dr. White made an illegitimate appeal to authority.
Soli Deo Gloria.
-h.
LikeLike