Simonides' claim to be the creator of Codex Sinaiticus continues to strengthen

Chris Pinto's radio show on 10/4/16, Codex Sinaiticus Revisited is a review and update of the evidence for Constantine Simonides' claim to have been the author of Codex Sinaiticus, a claim that grows more solid as others have done their own research based on Chris' work and become convinced of Simonides' claim.   I pray that his work will become instrumental in setting the Church free of what is in fact a huge lie foisted on Christian scholarship that serves only to undermine the authority of the Bible.

Chris is proving himself to be a dogged researcher capable of solving important historical mysteries, in this case overturning the accepted explanations of the status of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus as authentic ancient manuscripts.   But all his documentaries have that stamp of original research, all reveal something important that goes against the accepted understanding, such as the character of the American founding, such as the influence of Alfred Kinsey. 

(Incidentally, he also deserves credit for solving the mystery of The Georgia Guidestones monument, actually tracking down the man who created it, and recording his investigation in the documentary Dark Clouds Over Elberton.  I found the revelation of the philosophical bent of its creator surprising myself, but it all hangs together.)

The evidence for Simonides' claims includes the validation of his credentials as a genuine paleographer and scholar of ancient manuscripts,  his legal acquittal of the charge of forgery, and Tischendorf's retraction of that accusation when he came to see that Simonides' Greek copy of the Shepherd of Hermas was genuine, and identical to the copy included in Codex Sinaiticus; as well as the testimony of a Greek monk who knew Tischendorf, exposing his story about finding the manuscript as a lie; and knew that Simonides was its author; plus the credibility of his own defense which was published in a London newspaper.  Chris reviews all this and probably more that I've forgotten. 

Eventually those who insist on dismissing Simonides should have to change their minds.

And I'm sure Chris depends on the Lord to guide him.  New revelations of the sort he produces show God's handiwork it seems to me.

Chris Pinto's Bridge to Babylon focuses on the Revision of 1881

Perhaps the bad English of the modern Bible translations isn't the most important thing, but I almost can't listen to any reading of any of them for that reason.  The NASB continues to be considered a particularly good translation so it is read regularly on my local Christian radio station, and John MacArthur, one of my favorite teachers, quotes from it in his sermons.  MacArthur also defends it as a good translation because it's true to the Greek text, an opinion that makes me cringe for another reason, since it's the corrupted Greek texts behind the modern Bibles that are the main reason they should be rejected.

Convincing people about this who aren't already convinced can seem like a lost cause, but I'm always happy when a new effort is made.  Chris Pinto's latest documentary, Bridge to Babylon, is now available [at Noise of Thunder radio or Adullam Films] and it promises to be a thorough expose' of the many different ways the 1881 English Revision is untrustworthy.  He has done a couple of radio programs about the film that should help show why it's important:  Look for the titles Bridge to Babylon on 9/1 and The Critical Text on 9/2.{UPDATE 10/8:  he's added a number of programs on the documentary since then].

My copy of Bridge to Babylon is on its way and I'm looking forward to it.

It's All Going Down, Isn't It?

I did originally have in mind collecting many of the various mistreatments of scripture that were the result of the Revision of 1881 but haven't been up to it lately. I suppose I may yet get to it, but meanwhile I'm more or less waiting and wondering if there will be more to the Simonides story to post about.

Whether Simonides' claims to be the author of Codex Sinaiticus turn out to be true or not, however, John Burgon has already made the case very well that Sinaiticus is corrupt and should not be taken seriously, leaving the KJV as the only trustworthy Bible.  Nevertheless, despite what seems to me and others to be such an excellent case against it, Sinaiticus continues to be held up by Academia as "the oldest and best" of the Greek manuscripts and therefore its destructive effect on the Bible unfortunately has a clear path.

Chris Pinto's most recent radio program Cardinal Dolan and the Bible Hunters discusses a BBC production, The Bible Hunters, which makes it quite explicit that Codex Sinaiticus all by itself has destroyed the grounds of faith in the Bible for many Christians.

The other part of his show addresses Cardinal Dolan's affirmation that despite all the usual Plausible Deniability the Pope is promoting civil unions for homosexuals.  These two subjects are related of course because once the Bible has been discredited nothing it says about homosexuality has to be taken seriously.  And as Pinto points out, once the Pope is understood to be supporting gay unions the path is clear for the persecution of Christians who continue to hold to the Biblical view of homosexuality as sin.  Already what was once understood to be an unnatural act even by nonChristians, that couldn't even be imagined to gain the support as a normal activity it has today, is now used as a weapon against Christians, branding us as bigots and "haters" who lack Christian "love" of all things.  Christendom, once so-called, is already battered and bleeding from the destruction of the Bible, now it's just a matter of lining up the remaining Christians in front of the execution squad.  The devil must be very proud of his work.

We've known it's coming for some time, but now it seems it could all come down very rapidly in the near future.  This Pope could very well be the last Pope and the final Antichrist must therefore be just around the corner.

I'd like to think we might still be able to turn many in the churches to the truth about these things.  There are far too many Christians who accept the authenticity of the Bible-killing Codex Sinaiticus.  And what grounds do we then REALLY have for winning others to Christ?  Some hold to the illusion that the Bible remains inerrant even as they embrace as authentic the bogus texts that prove it's not.   I don't have much hope that they can be turned of course, all this is happening so fast and it's so depressing it's even hard to pray about it. 

I want to hope, however.   But our real hope is in Christ anyway, whatever happens on this earth. 

Look up for your redemption draweth nigh.    

Nice Comment on Pinto's Post-Debate radio show

UPDATE:
Chris Pinto on yesterday's radio show did his own review of Hiram Diaz's review which I posted below this one. 


=========================
This was by "mt" who appears to have read one of my blog posts, which of course makes me happy, and does a very nice job of saying what the debate was all about.

==============================================

I think Dr. White's comments are a testament to just how successful the watering down of seminary / church history education in America is. As a former Catholic I can certainly testify of how startling it is to wake up to the facts of Rome's historical influences and how much further reaching they are than what we have been taught. But it seems strange that reformed believers want to argue the other side of the debate... perhaps b/c they haven't experienced what it feels like to come out of the stupor of false doctrine, and don't understand how deep it goes or how underhandedly it has been perpetrated on the world. This is perhaps also owed to the success of the propaganda put forth in modern day academia.   (I say this as someone with a master's level education myself. The elitism in academia can be overbearing.)

From listening to the debate, it "appeared" that Dr. White wanted to divert attention to the Jesuits, as a tactic to discredit Chris, b/c White does not see credibility in any of CJP's historical research on their reported conspiratorial behaviors. Probably also b/c he had such a weak argument against the actual topic. After all, these S.J.'s are so nice and smooth talking, they couldn't possibly be bad. Right? I would guess he knows that if he says something dogmatically and authoritatively enough, and often enough, his followers will still believe what he says without bothering to check it out for themselves. Quoting James White seems to bear as much authority as quoting scripture for some folks. Some of the blog posts of those who think he "won" would bear this out, IMO. The statements they make have no substance to suggest otherwise. But it seems clear Dr. White has a lot invested in his viewpoint and doesn't want to budge. No surprises there. I don't think it's any coincidence either that he was given the last word.

I think Chris was very gracious, Christ-like, and polite. But, in spite of Chris' composed demeanor, White, while more polite than usual, not only tried to detract from the agreed upon topic, but also hit below the belt at least a couple times with condescending remarks. I still find that disconcerting, because it seems the "debate" forum for him was more an attempt to squelch Chris' research and prove his own right-ness than it was to seek truth. He attempted to dominate the debate, restate the "rules", cut Chris off, hold Chris to standards he can't hold himself to, and justify himself as graciously deigning to take time to debate Chris because of his supposed noble mission to disprove Chris' theory.

I believe Chris' forthright manner and clearly stated historical citations showed his character to be above that of his "opponent". Time will tell how God will use it to expose the truth of the authenticity of these manuscripts vs those that uphold those time-tested scriptures, integral to our faith and the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ. God may have opened a door through this debate to do just that. It seems Chris' film-making and podcasting experience prepared him well to deal with the time constraints of his first formal debate.

Meanwhile, we can only hope and pray that some of Chris' accusers will be convicted in their hearts and repent and apologize for calling him "a liar". These are the very people who demanded Chris' apologies and have not yet humbled themselves to do likewise. We will continue to pray that Chris will continue to be a shining light in spite of them, and will continue to rise above his critics. We all have the challenge of not becoming embittered when attacked in this manner and, from what I can see, Chris' priorities are right in this regard.

Best Review of the Debate, by Hiram Diaz

Chris Pinto posted this at his site, and HERE is the original source.  There is also a link to the debate itself there. I don't know who Hiram Diaz is but he absolutely nailed it about the debate:

======================================
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.

Chris Pinto's assessment of the debate: not a matter of winning or losing

Chris Pinto's assessment of the debate is here and he did his usual great job of mustering his material and making his points.  He has command of his information and he has the right Christian attitude as well.

Was the Simonides question resolved in the debate?  Clearly not. 

I know I've been falling down on the job on this blog in recent months, being preoccupied with other things.  When I see a whole page of articles critical of Chris Pinto as a "conspiracy thinker" by another Christian ministry I'm not going to name, I feel the weight of my failure to keep up with these issues.   But Chris always answers that accusation very effectively. 

At the end he criticizes those of us who have made remarks in terms of who won the debate and makes it clear he doesn't think in those terms, that all the participants are on the same side, all seeking the truth that best serves the Lord.  Wonderful, I want to believe that, and in the most general sense I do believe it.  The problem is that the debate format itself demands a win/lose orientation, and those who are exercised in debating skills usually "win" it as far as making a more effective-sounding case for their side irrespective of the actual facts or truth they've brought out.

After hearing Chris' assessment of the debate I'm happily reminded of just how fully he commands his material, which didn't get to come out in the debate as I'd have hoped, as at the end of the debate I had felt that the wrong side of the issues had come out on top.  Again, the problem with the debate format is that it favors the wrong goals if what you are really concerned about is a collegial effort at resolving differences in the service of the Lord.  Rather than casting this sort of disagreement in a debate format it needs something more along the lines of a round-table discussion, and MUCH more time should be given to it. 

Truth Lost the Debate in my Opinion

UPDATE:  Another comment from a reader:

Barbara Ogg wrote a great comment and I wish she'd posted it here instead of on a different post.   She rightly appreciates Chris Pinto's contribution which I'm afraid I slighted (although I agree with her) because I got overwhelmed with the externals of the debate itself, and her assessment of the whole debate and its significance is excellent.  Go check it out at the post titled  Chris Pinto to Debate James White

UPDATE:  Comment from reader

Steven Avery who wrote a comment on this blog post -- it's at bottom, please  check it out -- follows the scholarly questions about all this far more than I do or probably ever want to do, though I'm glad to hear what he has to say and may make an effort to upgrade my information from him.  If you go to his links to discussion threads you'll see how convoluted the issues can get.

I'm certainly OK with not having to think of the papyri in conspiratorial terms, those fragments found since Sinaiticus that are used to corroborate Sinaiticus.  In fact it's a relief not to think in conspiratorial terms.   And Sinaiticus remains a corrupted manuscript whether there was any conspiracy involved or not.  Avery doesn't agree with me that the Bible is called into question even if these are all authentic ancient manuscripts, because they are corrupted.

Maybe a different definition of "authentic" there.   My point was that if you try to defend the faith from them as White does, that you are FEEDING the Bible critics like Bart Ehrman and the Muslims, rather than answering them.   In spite of yourself you are supporting the argument against Bible inerrancy.  I don't know why this isn't obvious.

I suppose I end up agreeing with my own assessment at the bottom of this post, that concerning the Alexandrian manuscripts I'm with Burgon still, and ultimately it's a matter of spiritual discernment.

===================================== 

UPDATE:  Questions about Simonides

 Find myself pondering questions I've had in the back of my mind about Simonides that never quite came to the surface, that I more or less thought would get answered down the road somewhere, since as Pinto characterizes the situation it has remained rather mysterious overall so you don't expect all questions to be answered right away. 

1)  White brought up one of them:  Why in an orthodox Greek monastery would they have had an Alexandrian manuscript from which Simonides worked?  I think White said they normally used the Textus Receptus.  (But maybe I misunderstood that in some way.  If they wouldn't normally have that sort of text, how was it they had Codex Sinaiticus which  Tischendorf supposedly found?)

2)  Why would Simonides have produced a manuscript so riddled with errors and corrections if it was intended to be a gift to a Tsar?  This one has bothered me all along and I kept assuming there must be some kind of reasonable explanation but nothing has come up.

Those two lead me now to raise this one:

3)  If it wasn't his own production, what would he hope to gain by arguing about it in the newspaper for such a long time?   (= Since I can't see any personal advantage for him in it, I have to admit it leads me into conspiracy type questions:  who benefited from his claim and his ultimately being discredited?

=================================

Original Post.  First response to the debate: 

James White "won" it, at least as far as the Simonides episode goes, but that was the main focus of the debate after all, if not its real significance.  It colors all the other issues, however, unfortunately, the role of Tischendorf and the basic question about authenticity of Sinaiticus, and to my mind that means the Bible and Christianity lost.  I look forward to what Chris Pinto has to say about this in the days to come, but for myself I can always put the Simonides episode on hold and go back to Burgon. 

White thinks the papyri make Burgon obsolete.  I think Burgon was right to suspect that there was a lot more to the Westcott and Hort fraud than meets the eye, and yes, as White asked Chris at the end, would I suspect the fraud to continue even to the papyri, and my answer is yes I would. 

To my mind Chris Pinto has thoroughly proved through his films and talks and articles, entirely from the evidence, mostly the quotations of others, that there is such a thing as a true conspiracy, in this case by the Antichrist himself.  I guess White isn't going to be persuaded, I shouldn't have considered that as a possibility for a moment, he's completely persuaded by the corrupted manuscripts, and for now at least, that is that.

 I do think White raised enough questions about the processes Simonides would have had to go through to create the Codex to bring his story into doubt, but that just leaves it still a huge mystery why Simonides would ever have come forward to claim to have created the manuscript himself, what on earth would he have had to gain by that claim?  And I'm afraid White makes a good case about how Tares portrays Tischendorf too, which bothered me the first time I saw it, as overacting at least.  The actual statements made in the film may not convict Tischendorf but the images that portray him do.  I think there's plenty to question about Tischendorf, but the case isn't made in the film well enough for the image of him they created.

Those are flaws in the film and that's too bad because they then can be used against the real point at issue, the authenticity of the Greek manuscript Tischendorf claimed to have found.  The idea that you can defend the faith with manuscripts that contradict the traditional Bible is absolutely ridiculous.  White keeps saying these newly discovered "most ancient" manuscripts are a great blessing to the Church, but there's no way that is the case.  They call the Bible into question, period.  If they ARE authentic then we essentially have no more Bible.  Forget it, people CAN grasp the implications of such discrepancies.   Bart Ehrman and the Muslims are right about that.

I don't believe they are authentic, of course.  That doesn't depend on how the Simonides story turns out though I'd still love to see some smoking gun evidence in favor of that theory.  But even if it never turns up I think Burgon had the right instincts about a conspiracy to enshrine what he said the Church had formerly known to be corrupt manuscripts.   And besides the fraudulent use of those manuscripts against the instructions given to the revising committee,  there was also the fact of the thousands of unnecessary changes, in Burgon's opinion and in Bishop Wordsworth's opinion at least, the whole ugly result being a mutilation of the Bible and no revision.  Burgon saw the implications of the mutilation in the destruction of the Biblical witness. 

We start with that simple discernment:  the revision destroyed the Biblical witness, destroyed it.   If there isn't any identifiable conspiracy to bring about that effect, that is nevertheless the effect.

What Pinto has done is collect a ton of circumstantial evidence that there is a LOT more going on than meets the eye involving the Bible versions controversies.  But if you think the Alexandrian texts and the proliferation of Bibles is a "blessing" none of that is going to mean anything to you anyway. 

So I've come to believe that it's very possible for a highly complex covert conspiracy to be ongoing down the centuries.  We may never be able to pin it down in this life, of course, which means we won't be able to do anything about it in this life.  Except pray.  And that's no small thing but when you don't have anything you can actually DO to turn people away from the false Bibles you can feel pretty helpless.  My strength is made perfect in weakness just went through my head.  Well, if we prayed as we should we might see the Lord work. 

But again, even forgetting the possibility of such a conspiracy, the 1881 Revision was an absolute disaster for the Bible and for the Church.  White is simply wrong about that.

In the end it's a matter of spiritual discernment.

First Flash Mob of the Season / Plus debate schedule

UPDATE:

Found some tweets about the debate off James White's website.  They are expecting White to be able to destroy Chris Pinto's claims about Constantine Simonides.   They have the standard view of Simonides of course, apparently haven't been listening to Chris' radio show on these subjects recently where he musters the evidence that raises serious questions about that view.

According to a tweet by White, the debate is to be live at 6PM EST (3PM here in the west) on
  Pirate Christian radio


=====================================================
Wonderful Flash Mob Christmas performance by the US Air Force.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIoSga7tZPg

I saw it right after I heard Chris Pinto's latest response to James White, in which he makes it painfully clear how Codex Sinaiticus has destroyed the credibility of the Bible, although White and others continue to defend it as authentic, unwittingly contributing to this destruction.

Pinto shows what apparently White is blind to, that Muslims love to point to Sinaiticus as proof that the Bible is not trustworthy.

And not only Muslims but every anti-Christian atheistic Bible hater out there, which is a growing number, are getting their Bible debunkery from Sinaiticus too, though they may not know it.

 If the Bible is not trustworthy, that means the music in this video is utterly without foundation.

A pox on Codex Sinaiticus!

  The debate between Pinto and White is tomorrow, I don't know where or when but I'm sure I'll find out eventually.

The Debate Is Well Under Way

Today Chris Pinto did a very long radio show in answer to another one James White did attacking Pinto's film Tares Among The Wheat. Pinto said since White is coming out with his arguments he needs to answer him, especially since there will probably not be anywhere near enough opportunity to say much of what needs to be said during the debate itself. 

  Pinto knows his stuff. And it's certainly clear from all the facts he brought up today that the historical situation is much too complex for a debate format. It would take many such radio show exchanges even to begin to get it all said, and it's very hard for the average listener, like me, even though I've done some work on these things myself, to process all the information and keep it in mind. To get the Simonides affair in perspective requires many quotes from many different people from the time for instance. Anyway I'm glad he's doing this and I can only hope and pray it might wake up James White as Pinto hopes it might.  At the very least maybe it will establish enough factual information to help streamline the debate some.

I particularly enjoyed the last part of the show from about the hour mark on (he was going over the allotted time), where he sort of condenses his reaction to White's arguments. I laughed for what must be the first time ever in a discussion of these things when he characterized White's idea of defending the faith through the corrupted Greek manuscripts as hitting himself over the head with Goliath's sword; and then I cried through the last few minutes as he described how the proliferation of Bibles with faulty translational methods has contributed to the destruction of America. He doesn't think the great variety of gratuitous English wording contributes to the problem, though I do, and I think it's all part of the plot, but still there's no doubt in my mind that he's right about the effect of the modern Bibles in destroying once-Christian America. It breaks my heart.

James White Begins the Debate a Week Early

So today Chris Pinto's radio show. The Character of Tischendorf is an answer to a radio show done by James White objecting to how Pinto portrayed Constantine Tischendorf in his film Tares Among the Wheat. Pinto and White are scheduled to debate the issues covered in the film on December 11, though no details as to where and what time have been given, and unfortunately we probably already get a glimpse of how the debate may go from White's objections at this point. As Pinto points out, he doesn't address any of the facts presented about Tischendorf in the film, just makes the general accusation that the film's characterization of Tischendorf is "grossly unfair."

I guess it's silly of me to think it might be possible for a debate to address the important questions and do it with facts well appreciated from both sides, since the usual debate is a morass of miscommunications (Did White really watch the film carefully?) and biased reactions.

I'd really like to hear the Simonides question fairly and thoroughly addressed.

Oh well. We can keep praying for the debate nevertheless.

"Sprinkle" or "startle?" --Just Another Bit of Translational Skulduggery from Westcott and Hort

Heard a great message on Christian radio this afternoon on Isaiah 53, which really starts back in Isaiah 52.  When the preacher got to Isaiah 52:15 he commented that the Hebrew word nazah, which is translated in the KJV as "sprinkle," is best translated "startle." 

The KJV has:

So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

But supposedly it would be better as "So shall he "startle" many nations?" 

For me these days it's an unavoidable irritation to hear sermons where the preacher favors the Westcott and Hort-inspired translations over the KJV, and this one is especially irritating because "startle" just isn't anything like "sprinkle," so I wanted to find out what lay behind it.  It's not irritating, by the way,  because I think the KJV is perfect, which I don't, but because I know the KJV translators knew their languages and this felt like just another slap in their worthy God-fearing faces by the revisers who hated the KJV, I mean HATED it, which they even said in so many words, being closet Catholics.  So I have to suspect it's probably another one of those 36,000 unnecessary corrections made in Westcott and Hort's 1881 "revision"  (See Bishop Wordsworth quote Change for Change's Sake in right margin).

I decided to find out.

So I did a little research. 

The list of Bible versions at Blue Letter Bible for that verse shows that nine of the twelve English versions have "sprinkle" while only two of them, the New Living and the Revised Standard, have "startle" and one, Darby, has "astonish."

The Revised Standard Version IS Westcott and Hort's Revision.  ONLY theirs and the New Living Translation have "startle."  Interesting that all the other modern versions stuck with the KJV on "sprinkle" instead of following the lead of the RSV from which they're all textually descended.   Should that perhaps be explained as their recognizing that "sprinkle" is the better rendering, or is there some other explanation?

The Hebrew word nazah  according to Strong's Concordance, occurs 24 times in the Hebrew Bible. 
It is translated in the KJV 24 times as "sprinkle."  That is, it is never translated by any other English word than "sprinkle" any place it occurs in the text.

Strong's gives "sprinkle" as the main meaning in English but also notes a secondary meaning, "leap," from which "startle" is deduced. 

I've discovered that this is a typical pattern for the Westcott and Hort revision.  That is, it's as if they checked the Concordance for the English meanings of a particular word in Greek or Hebrew, and chose a meaning that is on the list but far from the most common rendering, in a way that looks like they had no other interest than to find a rendering that is as different from the KJV as they could get but still within the ballpark as it were. 

People who favor the new versions will argue, of course, that a particular word is simply a "better translation" than the word found in the KJV, although they have no expertise in the language themselves and in most cases there's really nothing to justify that opinion except the fact that it's in a particular translation and not in the KJV.  The argument becomes silly in those cases where there are many different words in the many different translations, which is often the case.  Which of those many words is the "better translation" is a matter of subjective judgment.  And often a word choice was made simply to meet the requirement to have a certain number of differences from other translations in order to qualify for copyright.  That is another reason for the babelous cacophony of the translations besides Westcott and Hort's basic motive of vandalism of the KJV.  

So, yes, it looks like this is one of those 36,000 unnecessary changes, and maybe because it occurs in the Revision itself it's accepted by even the best of preachers as "more accurate" than whatever the KJV has:

• despite the fact that nine of the twelve versions at BLB give "sprinkle" in agreement with the KJV
• and despite the fact that "sprinkle" is the most common rendering.

I suppose Darby got "astonish" from "leap" too, but his is an oddball translation anyway.

The New Living Translation gives "cleanse" as an alternative in a footnote, which is odd since "cleanse" isn't exactly a synonym of "startle," although it is of "sprinkle."  But this is an oddball translation too. 

The translation that counts in this context is the RSV, because I wanted to know if this particular change can be traced to Westcott and Hort's devious schemes, and it looks like it certainly can.

I also looked up the English word "startle" in Strong's.  The word does not occur in the KJV at all.

And the English word "astonish:"  It occurs in various forms in the KJV ("astonied" and "astonished"), not one of which translates a Hebrew word even remotely similar to nazah.

Information on the RSV at Blue Letter Bible:

Transcribed from: The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version containing the Old and New Testaments, translated from the original tongues: being the version set forth A.D. 1611, revised A.D. 1881-1885 and A.D. 1901: compared with the most ancient authorities and revised A.D. 1946-52. — 2nd ed. of New Testament A.D. 1971. There should be enough in the rest of the description to identify the text.

Excuse me if my lip curls in a sneer as I read this.  I'm sniffing sulfur from the pit of Hell, knowing that the RSV was produced by people who hated the KJV, who ignored the instructions to keep the revision to a minimum of changes by making 36,000 UNNECESSARY changes in the English (I assume a few were necessary), AND by palming off as "older and better" a few corrupted Greek texts which happen to have been approved by the Vatican, in the place of the KJV's Textus Receptus on which all the previous English translations had been based.  So to claim that it has anything whatever to do with the "version set forth A.D. 1611" except to mutilate it, is a big fat lie.  "Compared with the most ancient authorities" is just another piece of the Antichrist lie about the corrupted texts they've reinvented to be the oldest and best.  More Vatican inspired forgeries and deceptions.   Go watch Chris Pinto's films and listen to his radio shows.

Chris Pinto answers a typical accusation of Constantine Simonides who claimed to have created Codex Sinaiticus

I got an anonymous comment on one of my earlier posts on the Constantine Simonides Controversy, just a quote from Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts by Frederic G. Kenyon, written in 1939, in which Kenyon passes on the accepted understanding of the Simonides affair, which makes Simonides out to be the villain in the story and Tischendorf his victim.  I sent it on to Chris Pinto and got back the following comment from him:

[Kenyon]  “The romance of the Codex Sinaiaticus was not yet over, however. Since the year 1856 an ingenious Greek, named Constantine Simonides, had been creating a considerable sensation by producing quantities of Greek manuscripts professing to be of fabulous antiquity, - such as a Homer in an almost prehistoric style of writing, a lost Egyptian historian, a copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel on papyrus, written fifteen years after the Ascension (!), and other portions of the New Testament dating from the first century. These productions enjoyed a short period of notoriety, and were then exposed as forgeries." 

[Chris Pinto:]  This first part of the quote has to do with the MSS. unrolled by Simonides in the Mayer Museum in Liverpool.  The MSS. belonged to the museum and had been purchased by Joseph Mayer years before he ever met Simonides.  Furthermore, they were opened in the presence of Mr. Mayer and the curator, John Eliot Hodgkin.  Hodgkin knew that these papyri were genuine, and could not have been forged by Simonides.  This, I believe, was part of the reason why Hodgkin defended Simonides to the end, because he knew that he had been falsely accused. 

In 1907, James Farrer wrote about about these scrolls.  Though he was not entirely in the camp of Simonides, Farrer defended him on this point and said: "It is almost impossible to believe in his manufacture of these papyri.  They correspond in writing and appearance with numberless other papyri which have of recent years been discovered and published ... If these are forgeries, they can hardly be forgeries by Simonides; and if he was guiltless in respect of these, he was presumably guiltless in respect of the others." (James Farrer, "Literary Forgeries," p. 56)

"Among the scholars concerned in the exposure was Tischendorf; and the revenge taken by Simonides was distinctly humourous. While stoutly maintaining the genuineness of his own wares, he admitted that he had written *one* manuscript which passed as being very ancient, and that was the Codex Sinaiaticus, the discovery of which had been so triumphantly proclaimed by Tischendorf! The idea was ingenious, but it would not bear investigation. Apart from the internal evidence of the text itself, the variations in which no forger, however clever, could have invented, it was shown that Simonides could not have completed the task in the time that he professed to have taken; and this little cloud on the credit of the newly-discovered manuscript rapidly passed away.

  Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (4th ed.), Kenyon, Frederick G. (1939), Pages 123-124"

The "time" issue in terms of how long it would take to complete the MS. has been confronted by at least one other scholar, who says the argument is unsustainable.  Farrer also says Simonides could have certainly done it in the time he claimed.  Furthermore, the argument about "revenge" against Tischendorf doesn't work either.  The reason is that they claim Simonides wanted revenge because Tischendorf had supposedly "exposed" his copy of the Shepherd of Hermas as a forgery in 1856 at the University of Leipzig.  What most researchers don't realize is that as a result of the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, Tischendorf would eventually retract his objections to that codex, and admitted that it was genuine in 1863.  Why?  Because included in Cod. Sinaiticus was a copy of the Shepherd of Hermas, that apparently matched the copy presented by Simonides at Leipzig.  See below:"The Greek text (brought from Mt. Athos by Constantine Simonides, and called Cod. Lipsiensis) was first published by R. Anger, with a preface by G. Dindorf (Lips. 1856); then by Tischendorf, in Dressel’s Patres  Apost., Lips 1857 (p. 572–637); again in the second ed. 1863, where Tischenderf, (sic) in consequence of the intervening discovery of the Cod. Sinaiticus retracted his former objections to the originality of the Greek Hermas from Mt. Athos, which he had pronounced a mediaeval retranslation from the Latin" (Source: History of the Christian Church, by P. Schaff)

As such, it doesn't make sense that Simonides would want revenge in this way.  The discovery of Codex Sinaiticus actually vindicated him, and proved that Tischendorf had been wrong and Simonides had been right.  Furthermore, when Simonides presented his "Shepherd" in 1855, it was the only known copy of that MS. in Greek.  Western scholars had only seen it in Latin beforehand.  This was a major point in favor of Simonides' story, and was considered proof in favor of the possibility that he had created Codex Sinaiticus.  CJP

Chris Pinto challenged to debate with James White on Codex Sinaiticus Validity

Chris Pinto mentioned in passing on today's radio show [runs from about 18:22 to 20.00] that he is going to debate James White (who wrote The King James Controversy) in December, about the validity of Codex Sinaiticus.  Gotta pray that Pinto will be sharp and on target, and not easily derailed by any attempts to make him out to be KJV-only, although that may not even come up I suppose.  More likely he'll be characterized as a conspiracy thinker with the usual implication that it's all in his imagination and imposed on the facts.   That shouldn't be too hard to dispel, though,-- if White is an honest debater and I expect that of him -- because Chris has mustered his facts well on this subject .

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.

The Roman Connection: Kurt Aland

A lady in England who likes this blog and likes doing some research into these things on her own sent me this picture, a heads-up about Kurt Aland, along with some interesting information about Hort's Catholic influences as well. Hope I have time to get to the latter eventually.

Seems to me I'd heard that Kurt Aland has some Catholic connections although I haven't been able to spend much time researching these things lately. That's Aland of the Nestle-Aland Greek Critical Text that underlies so many of today's English Bible versions, and that preserves the execrable Alexandrian texts so favored by Westcott and Hort. His credentials as shown at Wikipedia are pretty strictly Protestant, although I've been learning that Protestant affiliations do not always guarantee a truly Protestant background or mindset, as I'd suggest the picture demonstrates.

Besides the picture, the Wikipedia article suggests a less-than-pure Protestant worldview with this comment:

Among experts Aland proved himself to be an important ecumenist who has left the small range of German Protestantism far behind.

Chris Pinto's latest film on the history of the Bible, Tares Among the Wheat, is due out soon, and is promised to touch on the Catholic connection in the Bible versions issue. Go Chris Pinto! Pray for Chris Pinto!

We need this stuff. Let's pray for a new Protestant Reformation, pray against the Roman Antichrist, pray for more revelation of the truth about all these things.

Hey, Church: check out my Catholicism blog and read some of the stuff I've listed there in the right hand margin. If I can I'll try to come back and put the links here as well.

[Just a little side note: I've got a ton of stuff I'd love to get to for this blog and other blogs, and other projects on top of that, the Lord willing, AND I'm physically in bad shape which is contributing to the lag, having to get medical tests done and hoping for a hip replacement in the near future that might make a huge difference in my "quality of life," again Lord willing. So if anyone is inclined to pray for me PLEASE DO SO. Thank you!]

Pinto on the King James Bible: Rome again, out to kill the Protestant Reformation

Chris Pinto has yet to take a position I object to and rarely fails to teach me something important as well. I know my blogs are becoming something like a Chris Pinto fan club, but that's because I believe what he has to offer Christians is crucially needed -- and on the very subjects some of my different blogs are intended to address.

Here he is on The King James Bible. This radio show was on July 4, 2011, and you may have to look a a page or two ahead of the linked page to find it since the page numbers keep changing as new shows are added. [Later: Must recommend the next radio show as well, on the same page, Rome vs. the Bible].

His defense of the King James is excellent. He calls himself "King James Mostly" which could describe me too, except that he's Textus Receptus Only, which I could also call myself, except that I want a label that indicates that I'm against the English translation of the Revision of 1881 as much as I'm against the corrupted Greek texts they used. So I'm really anti-Westcott and Hort. Nevertheless, in this radio show he makes a fine case for the English of the King James as well. [I gather that the main reason he's "King James Mostly" is that he's against the fanatical King James Only camp, as I also am, accepting that other translations are also the word of God, while believing that the King James is the best translation we have.]

He does believe that the Bibles that have come out since the Revision of 1881 are being pushed by Rome, no surprise since he has uncovered all kinds of influences of the hand of Rome in other areas including political movements, wars, secret societies and all the other religions of the world. Rome's influence on the Bible Revision is something I would never have discovered if it weren't for his work.

I read enough of Westcott and Hort to recognize that they hated the King James Bible with an irrational hatred, which Pinto of course shows to be the attitude of Rome as well, since the King James represents the Protestant Reformation which is her greatest enemy. I had also noted some remarks by Westcott and Hort that showed them to be favorable to Rome, but nothing like a smoking gun that would demonstrate with any certainty that their destructive 1881 Revision had the same intention as Rome's behind it, quite simply to destroy the word of God. Pinto makes this a far more likely possibility than I could have guessed.

You also have to see his film A Lamp in the Dark which you can find at Noise of Thunder dot com, and I'm looking forward to his next film on the Bible, Tares Among the Wheat which I understand will be out in a few weeks.

As usual, I believe Pinto's work should be known by all Christians.

Chris Pinto's new film "Tares Among the Wheat" is where he will investigate the 1881 disaster

So I'm happy to report -- and grateful too -- that today's (March 21) broadcast of Chris Pinto's radio show Noise of Thunder is on Bible History, and he did talk about the work he's currently involved in that should reveal some behind-the-scenes influences on our modern Bibles. This will be part of his film now in production titled Tares Among the Wheat.

Today's broadcast includes a lot of good information on the trustworthiness of the Bible documents. I gather he believes that the Alexandrian texts really were influenced by heretics in the early church, as did J W Burgon, and that will no doubt be covered in more detail in the film.

He puts much emphasis on Catholic -- Jesuit -- influence on the modern Bibles. Westcott and Hort revealed quite a bit of sympathy with the Roman Church themselves, not enough to suggest a Roman Catholic conspiracy behind their destructive work on the Bible Revision of 1881, but I would guess that Chris Pinto has unearthed some connections along those lines.

Chris Pinto's documentary films are really inspiring and informative productions and I'm particularly looking forward to this one.

The Vatican behind the proliferation of Bibles?

Haven't seen any more about new revelations about the modern Bibles from Chris Pinto but on his radio show for March 19th he remarks that he believes all the new Bibles are part of a plan to make the true Bible unrecognizable (he says this in a short section of the program from about 2:40 to about 7:30). He attributes the plan to the Vatican. If he has specific evidence about efforts in this direction I'd love to hear it, but I'm already convinced something destructive of the Bible and of the Church is going on -- although I usually don't attribute it to a conspiracy.

It may well be the case, however: Pinto has recently convinced me of other conspiracies that are certainly taking us to a New World Order and the rule of Antichrist, so why not this too?

Some think the aim of the new Bibles is to deceive people with particular New Age translations. He on the other hand thinks the plan is to progressively make the Bible more and more a paraphrase. That may be so but it seems to me that the simple fact of having so many different Bibles has already achieved the aim of destroying the Bible for many, because already we have a babel of tongues created in the churches by the use of many different "translations" even in one congregation.

Beyond that, some of the translations do insinuate an altered message into the minds of readers. Where did I recently see the statistic that 34% of Christians use the NIV, probably the worst of the false Bibles out there, so bad that almost every church I've been in has warned against it, even though they have no problem with many of the other translations.

So I was glad to hear this from Chris Pinto and I hope he does have some inside information on the creation of these bogus Bibles that I'll eventually get to hear.