But this is exciting news to me since Pinto has been convincing me for some time now that Sinaiticus was the work of paleographer Constantine Simonides and not an ancient manuscript at all, and I very much hope he will succeed in persuading James White and Daniel Wallace and many others.
If it's the truth of course, but as I said, I believe it is.
On his site he has an article about a video of Daniel Wallace speaking on Tischendorf's find of Sinaiticus that James White had posted on his website as his argument against Pinto's claims, about which he comments:
The video below was posted on James White's Alpha and Omega ministry website, as an alleged refutation of the claims of Constantine Simonides. The headline for the article appears thus: "Evangelical Textual Scholar Debunks Chris Pinto's Conspiracy Claim that Codex Sinaiticus was a Forgery." It is worth noting that the scholar in question (Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary) does not mention Chris Pinto, or the film Tares Among the Wheat. Had Dr. Wallace actually seen the film, his comments would most likely have been orchestrated differently, and he might have even been convinced to change his mind.
Dr. Wallace is obviously unfamiliar with certain particulars surrounding the Simonides affair, and we believe this is not entirely his fault, since this history has been largely buried for more than a century. The purpose of Tares is to show the untold history surrounding the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, and to draw attention to the fact that this single manuscript has been used to destroy confidence in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. As such, whether or not this codex is genuine becomes very significant.
A few things: Dr. Wallace says that Tischendorf had "exposed" Simonides as a forger years earlier, which is untrue....
Furthermore, Dr. Wallace mentions Henry Bradshaw's testimony as if it were conclusive proof that Codex Sinaiticus was genuine. Yet (as we document in Tares) Bradshaw's argument was not based on any scientific evidence or analysis, which he openly admitted. His argument was that he didn't know why he believed it, but that his "senses" told him it was real. That's it. There was no deep scientific argument. Just his senses. This is further proof that he and the other men who confirmed Codex Sinaiticus as a genuine fourth century MS. were themselves of provably limited abilities, and they based their conclusions on analysis that was, at best, doubtful.