James White Comments on Chris Pinto’s Conspiracy Theory on Codex Sinaiticus Being a Forgery - july 27, 2013
At 27:51, James White, author of The King James Only Controversy on his Dividing Line show comments on Pinto’s conspiracy:
http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20130725.mp3
White comments, here is an excerpt:
There is so much stupidity on the Net that what are you suppose to say? That kind of accusation, especially in light of all the other manuscripts that are clearly related to the text type of Sinaiticus that have a completely different provenance than Sinaiticus does. It is so absurd that it is sort of like I need to respond to the people who say we did not land on the moon.
White responds a second time to Pinto in the same show at 44:45 as it relates to conspiracy theories with Islam and the Jesuits.
Pinto has zero training in the New Testament textual tradition and is not able to even read the very manuscript he claims is a forgery. I do not believe that Pinto would know even how do respond to White’s point: “in light of all the other manuscripts that are clearly related to the text type of Sinaiticus that have a completely different provenance than Sinaiticus.” The answer would require a competent knowledge of the textual history of the New Testament, which Pinto does not possess.
Dan Brown of The Da Vinci Code would be proud of him.
One wonders if Brannon Howse is even aware of the fact that Pinto is undermining the trustworthiness in the Bible versions that the vast majority of Howse’s followers use (e.g. NIV, ESV, NASB, NET, etc). (Source: http://www.alankurschner.com )
____________________________________________________________________________
Hiram's Review of the White vs. Pinto Debate
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2013 AT 7:00AM NOTRADIO
DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE WHITE VS. PINTO DEBATE
By Hiram Diaz
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. (Source: http://www.noiseofthunder.com )
______________________________________________________________________________
James White responds to Chris Pinto
December 14, 2013 | Filed under: Featured,History | Posted by: SeekTheos
By Madison Rupper
Author and apologist James White recently debated radio host and filmmaker Chris Pinto on Pinto’s claim that Codex Sinaiticus is actually a modern century Jesuit forgery. The debate, which was held on Chris Rosebrough’s Pirate Christian Radio, can be heard here.
White chose to debate Pinto on the subject after Pinto released “Tares Among the Wheat,” a nearly 3-hour-long documentary promoting the theory. Essentially, Pinto claims that Codex Sinaiticus was forged as part of a grand Jesuit conspiracy to undermine the Bible, specifically the King James Version.
Pinto regularly promotes King James Onlyism in his films, including “A Lamp in the Dark,” the prequel to “Tares Among the Wheat.”
In the latest episode of “The Dividing Line,” James White’s podcast, White takes about 35 minutes to respond to an article written by Hiram Diaz and published on Pinto’s website after the debate along with some interactions on Twitter.
Pinto also produced a post-debate radio show on Dec. 13, which can be heard here.
Watch the Dec. 13 episode of “The Dividing Line” below, which includes the full audio of the debate between White and Pinto following White’s comments on the interactions following the debate.
12/13/2013 The Dividing Line In Response to Chris Pinto (Source:http://seektheos.com/james-white-responds-to-chris-pinto/ )
Post a Comment