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.
-h.
Link to original article here:
http://involutedgenealogies.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/disappointment-with-the-white-vs-pinto-debate/
Reader Comments (14)
a good assessment. I agree
I listened to the debate. I found J White, many
times to be somewhat insulting and rather arrogant.
His approach was more to attack the messenger.
Chris wad gracious and only presented documented,
historical evidence.
Well done, Chris.
Excellent assessment! Couldn't agree more.
I just listened to James White's recorded response to your (Chris Pinto's) comments on the debate, and it's difficult to characterize White in his response without resorting to the language of clinical psychology. Just the fact that he's incapable of any degree of collegiality towards Pinto gives away his need to resort to fallacious lines of attack when defending really the indefensible. Mocking and belittling your opponent is what the political left does because they can't defend their ideology which is a history of lies and failure and worse. Sinaiticus, Vatincanus, the echoes of the Counter-Reformation, Westcott and Hort, these are difficult things for a Protestant to defend, at least for very long. One wonders if White owns a well-worn copy of Alinsky.
I agree with this assessment. I have a couple of other observations about the debate. The moderator laid out the positions of the debate and was correct in saying that Chris Pinto was claiming this to be an unsolved matter. Dr. White argued from a position that C P was squarely saying sinaiticus absolutely is a forgery and spent an inordinate amount of time trying to make him fess up to his bias. Dr. White also has a fixation on the length of the documentary. Chris explained that he discovered new information concerning this controversy well into making this documentary and had previously held the same position as Dr. White. This point and several others seemed to fall on deaf ears. I have to give credit to brother Roseborough for his self control but I wonder if its normal for Dr. White to have the rebuttal position in the opening statement as well as the closing statement. Smells like it could be some home cooking to me considering he had a publicized bias. Both men in the debate are God fearing brothers in Christ. Chris handled himself as usual in a level and humble manner publicly proclaiming glory to God. Dr. White is a self proclaimed top apologist to Muslims and he has many debating skills and he is loud and sure of himself. This reminds me of Bible verses we all need to be familiar with, Proverbs 3:34 and 1 Peter 5:5. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.
I find James White to have a condescending manner towards others which is not helpful. When "debating" Calvinism he tends to come across as an arrogant person who demeans opponents.
Clearly, he needs to learn a little humility
http://involutedgenealogies.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/my-final-thoughts-on-the-white-vs-pinto-debate/
The problem is, your entire argument was predicated on "is it possible?" instead of hard facts. When making historical judgments like this one, the evidence is important. And if all that can be advanced are theories that don't find strength in the evidence, then they are, at best, improbable conjecture. It may be interesting to advance these theories, but in a debate (and one becomes part of a debate, like it or not, when one publishes a book or puts out a movie on a topic), theories count for nothing. Again...they are speculation that can't be upheld by the evidence. And finding a Jesuit behind every bush is only valid if the Jesuit leaves footprints. I love the KJV and probably will never use any other version (certainly not as primary source) but selectively picking quotes and advancing theories that have little or no solid historical evidence won't win debates.
Dear Jeremy,
The hard facts are that Constantine Simonides spent four years claiming to be the author of the Codex Sinaiticus. That is a fact. He went to his grave defending that claim. He named many witnesses who could corroborate his story, and gave details of marks within the manuscript that he could point to as proof. He repeatedly challenged Tischendorf to a public debate, declaring he would show the markings in question, but Tischendorf refused to show up. These are the facts. The theories about "collation" put forth by Dr. White are not facts -- they are speculations. His idea that a 19 year old could not have done the work, is not a fact -- it is more speculation. The idea that Simonides did not have access to certain manuscript readings is yet more non-factual, unprovable speculation by Dr. White. Perhaps most important, his assertion about "thousands" of unique readings in Codex Sinaiticus has already been debunked by other textual scholars. It sounds like you have been conditioned by talking points that you don't quite understand. The review by Hiram Diaz would be good for you to consider. CJP
Mr Diaz did a wonderful job in summarizing the debate and I agree with him that Chris won the debate. Sadly, I also agree that so few will understand what Dr White was ding with his fallacious reasoning and be distracted by his arguments and miss what Chris was saying. For years I agreed with Dr White on the King James Controversy until I spent serious time investigating the work with lots of versions laying out in front of me and getting my hands on lots of other people's works to see the whole of the issues involved. I praise the Lord that for those who seek the truth and wisdom in light of God's Word...He will give you understanding. I no longer agree with Dr White. I also have to agree with others that Chris R really practiced self-control and did a great job moderating. I appreciate everyone's involvement and especially Chris Pinto's faithfulness and determination to remain controlled and polite in the face of Dr White's attacks on him.
The Language of Modern Empiricism
This is the best comment I've seen to date on James White's performance in that debate (it's from the Puritanboard):
"The modern love for manuscripts was no part of the history [of Christianity down through the ages]. Mss. were not the object of devotion. Mss. were not looked upon as "treasure," "blessing to the church," etc. This is the language of modern empiricism. When one hears this language come from a speaker one should immediately recognise a departure from true Protestantism.
The text underlying the AV is the reformation text. The translators did not consult "mss." in the sense the word is used of Sinaiticus. The "treasure" is the Word; the revelation of God's will and its preservation is the "blessing to the church." Protestants recognised that this treasure and blessing was to be found uncorrupted in the text which had passed down to them."
- Rev. Matthew Winzer
Australian Free Church,
Victoria, Australia
Winzer also added in a follow-up comment: "This kind of language is a part of the infatuation which develops with archaeological discoveries and an over-appreciation for material evidence."
James White gave away his presuppositional bent towards modern empiricism in how he views the word of God in his waxing poetic about the "treasure" and "great blessing" of Sinaiticus to the Church.
Disagree.
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 rush 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 who were 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 Simonides is a forger, 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?
3) Is the denouncing of Simonides as being unable to create the manuscript within the timeframe stated based on the skills of an average scribe? I ask this because people described Simonides as a prodigy when it came to manuscripts. (After all, there is no way a five year old can compose music, yet Mozart did.)
* Regarding the Jesuit/Roman Catholic "conspiracy" supposedly motivating all of this
1) In what specific ways has Codex Sinaticus 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 that strengthens Roman Catholic doctrines.)
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: I'm going to repost this on other websites in hopes of getting some clarity.)
I posted again as per suggestions of others, and my comments were still not posted. I am truly sad! The appearance of biasing the blog is hard to avoid. Please do me the pleasure of some response or correction if this is not an error!
Shalom!
First, I want to state that I am a practicing Catholic. But, I am in no way directly influenced or compelled by Jesuit priests.Currently I am studying Jewish and Christian benedictions. During the Introductory Rite of the Holy Mass the celebrant states the following blessing:
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
This passage was taken from Saint Paul (2 Corinthians 13:14) is included in the King James and New Jerusalem Bibles. Further this Saint Paul's blessing is commonly used by all Christian denominations.
What is interesting is the the Codex Sinaiticus Does not include 2 Corinthians 13:14. If Jesuits were involved they would have made sure that this passage was included, because the Holy See believes it to scripture.
I have a different hypothesis that in fairness is not yet proven. I believe the differences between Codex Sinaiticus and Papyrus 46 reveal the Acacian schism. I do think collation of Scripture has to be done with extreme care. Jesus did state there was one unforgivable sin. A true Gospel scribe is more than being a savant calligrapher or collator. A true Gospel scribe is more than just being able to understand the words of the author. A true Gospel scribe has been given the special grace by the Holy Spirit (Ghost) of discernment of the words of Our Father and Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I will put a link to this page for my readers to view and will be praying for the fellowship of all Christians to come together and Praise our love for Hashem. May His Grace Bless you all.