A Response to Turretinfan

By NOTR

A commentary surfaced on the Alpha & Omega website written by someone calling himself “Turretinfan.”  It is a short review of the debate between Chris Pinto and James White on December 11, 2013.  The reviewer obviously favors White and desired to defend his side of the argument. 

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2013/12/17/chris-pinto-debate-summary-turretinfan/

Before we answer his commentary, we should mention that the writer in question has chosen his code name from Francis Turretin, a well known seventeenth century, Swiss Reformed theologian.  Turretin is perhaps best known for his teaching that the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist prophesied in Scripture.  His Seventh Disputation was titled, Whether it can be Proven the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist.  In short, he definitely thought it could be proven.   Within this context, the original Turretin wrote:

“… the Pope reigns in the Church in order to destroy and attack the Church itself.”

He also wrote that the Papal Antichrist works through deception, rather than open and obvious rebellion against the Gospel:

“We Reformed hold firmly that the Antichrist … must be a disguised enemy of Christ, who, under the pretense of the name of Christ would rule over the Church of Christ, attacking the person of Christ, his offices and his good works.  It must not, therefore, be expected that the Antichrist would openly profess himself the enemy of Christ …”

Interestingly, during the debate, White gave the impression that such ideas about Rome were unfounded conspiracy theories that should be dismissed.  He went out of his way to depart from the main topic (i.e. the possibility that Codex Sinaiticus is a forgery), to assail those things in our documentary that exposed the historic treachery of Romanism and the Counter Reformation.  White even scoffed at John Calvin’s belief that to the papacy could be traced all the doctrines that have sunk the world in idolatry and error.  His implacability in this regard was undeniable.  He showed that he was either grossly ignorant of Church history, or simply unwilling to acknowledge the truth of it. 

What would the original Turretin say about men like White who claim to be “reformed” in their view of the Christian faith, and yet reject the many warnings of the Reformation where the deceptions of Rome are concerned?  Even further, we wonder what the original Turretin would say about the relationship between the Pope and the United Bible Societies in modern times.  The UBS works with the Vatican to produce inter-confessional bibles around the world.  Would he suspect that this relationship is intended to ‘destroy and attack the Church’ through deceptive means?  Or would he agree with men like White and this modern day “fan” of his?

Perhaps even more bizarre is that “Turretinfan” goes beyond and even seems to defend the current Pope Francis.  Just a short time ago, in an article titled, “The BBC has overstated the Pope's liberal leanings,” he wrote:

“The RC Pope may not be as liberal as the BBC portrays him, but he expresses a position a lot closer to ‘Protestantism’ than some of his predecessors.”

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2013/11/evangelii-gaudium-bbc-has-overstated.html?m=1

Really?  This he says about the Pope who has promoted Socialism, Atheism and homosexuality at unprecedented levels (even for the Roman Church) – and we are told that he is closer to Protestantism than what we’ve seen before? 

The original Reformers did not engage in that sort of misleading dialogue where the teachings of the Papacy are concerned.  They clearly denounced the papal system as the Roman Antichrist, and recognized its inconsistent and deceptive nature.   As Charles Spurgeon once declared:

“Popery is a system of lies; she will deny or assert, just as it suits her purpose.”

Anyone who has carefully studied the current Pope will quickly realize that this is exactly what’s going on with the Vatican today.  She denies and asserts according to her own agenda, which is to unite the world through ecumenical dialogue -- all under the power of Rome. 

It is our opinion that the ecumenical leanings of the modern day Evangelical and neo-Reformed movement is what lies at the heart of the great Bible debate.  Compromise with Rome has taken the Church down the path to greater and ever increasing levels of apostasy, which currently seem to progress at an alarming rate. 

TURRETINFAN’S DEBATE REVIEW

Now to the comments of Turretinfan.  We remind the reader that during the debate, the position of Pinto was that the story of Simonides and the Codex Sinaiticus remains an “unsolved mystery.” The position of White was that the issue is provably resolved.

Turretinfan’s points are each numbered, and our response is preceded by NOTR (Noise of Thunder Radio) as follows:

1) Constantine Simonides claimed that he wrote the document based on collating pre-existing manuscripts, and that his uncle corrected the document.  Both sides agree that he so claimed. 

NOTR: Both sides do not completely agree.  According to the historic records, the “correctors” who were named in the 19^th century included Simonides, his uncle (Benedict), Dionysius (a professional calligrapher on Mt. Athos), and another monk named Callistratus at Mt. Sinai.  Four correctors, not merely one.

2) The most sympathetic source for Simonides says that Simonides was not a truthful person.

NOTR:  Actually, no.  The most sympathetic sources for Simonides were his personal friends, who included John Eliot Hodgkin (curator of the Mayer Museum), Mr. Charles Stewart (his biographer), along with Kallinikos (a Greek Hieromonk).  There were also several publications, including: The Literary Churchman and The Dial.  Each of these sources testified to their belief that Simonides was honest and honorable, or otherwise defended his arguments. 

The reference chosen by Turretinfan is James Farrer.  While Farrer believed Simonides to be dishonest, he still believed it was very possible that he created Codex Sinaiticus.  In his book, “Literary Forgeries,” he actually presents Sinaiticus as a potential work created by Simonides, and tells us that it remains an “unsolved mystery of literature” as to whether or not this is so.

3) There are no known examplars [sic] that could have been the source for Codex Sinaiticus.

NOTR:  That is, no exemplars known by James White.  During the debate, White admitted that he has not examined the manuscripts that were in Simonides’ possession on Mt. Athos, and was not even fully aware of what they were.  In his argument, he overlooked four of the MSS. entirely, admitting his ignorance of them. 

White was also unaware that there are many manuscripts on Mt. Athos today that have never been catalogued or seen by the Western world.  He also admitted that he has never been to Mt. Athos, never examined any of the manuscripts there, and has no knowledge of what those manuscripts might be.  His assertion that Simonides had no access to MSS. with certain readings was mere speculation based on his own lack of research into the subject matter.

4) Codex Sinaiticus was written by several different, distinguishable scribes (as evidenced by different handwriting, different style of abbreviations, and different accuracy of work).

NOTR:  The number of “scribes” has been a point of dispute since the Codex first appeared.  Tischendorf claimed to see four scribes, while Tregelles saw only one.  Scrivener believed there were two scribes, while the British Library today thinks it may be three – but they are uncertain.  Furthermore, in the 19^th century, both Simonides and Kallinikos testified that the manuscript had been “systematically tampered with” over time, and even “mutilated” by Tischendorf.  Further investigation would need to be done in order to determine whether or not this is so. 

5) Codex Sinaiticus has corrections by multiple different correctors.  Dr. White raised this point, Pinto did not respond to it except to say that two other men (a monk and a scribe) may have been involved in the corrections.

NOTR:  Again, incorrect.  As stated above, there were least four scribes and correctors named in the 19^th century: Simonides, Benedict, Dionysius and Callistratus.  That is at least four different hands working on the manuscript, which is well documented by the historic records.   

6) The amount of time necessary for collating multiple manuscripts of the entire Bible (plus some apocrypha) would have been prohibitive in the timeline proposed by Simonides.

NOTR:  While White raised the issue, he never defined the “timeline proposed by Simonides.”  He simply claimed it was prohibitive, but gave no explanation as to why (i.e., he did not provide the length of time in question).   In reality, Simonides claimed that the work happened over a period of 20 months from December 1839 through August 1841. 

By comparison, Desiderius Erasmus famously completed his first edition Greek New Testament in less than half that time.  He wrote: “I have got through six years work in eight months.”  The first edition of Erasmus is especially known for its remarkable number of errors.  This is the same characteristic of Codex Sinaiticus.  If the work was done hastily by Simonides and his uncle, this would at least partly explain why it has so many corrections. 

ADDITIONAL NOTES: (i.e. from Turretinfan)

1. Regarding the Mt. Athos manuscripts, there is an on-going digitization project (link). At one point, Mr. Pinto alleges that the one way to resolve the mystery was to explore the Mt. Athos library for manuscripts corresponding to Simonides' claims. He won't be able to stand behind that argument from ignorance forever.

NOTR:  In his closing remarks, Turretinfan admits that neither he nor James White explored the manuscripts on Mt. Athos, and that they are ignorant of what those manuscripts might be.  He assumes that once all the manuscripts have been digitized, he and White will be able to celebrate that none of those manuscripts contain the unique readings in question.  Such speculation does not remove the questions surrounding the Simonides controversy, but only perpetuates them.  Hence, Turretinfan, by default, admits that White failed to achieve his objective.

Furthermore, he seems unaware that the only manuscripts that are being digitized are the known works on Mt. Athos.  These works do not include the 1,000 + manuscripts, never-before-seen by Western scholars, which were mentioned by Pinto during the debate.  At least 100 of these manuscripts are said to be on Mt. Athos, while more than 900 others are reported to be in the surrounding areas.  These MSS. are not being digitized, but are to be only shared with a select group of scholars, as per Dr. David Brown of the Center for the Study and Preservation of the Majority Text. 

FINAL COMMENTS

In closing, we remind our readers that the story of Constantine Simonides and his claim to have written the Codex Sinaiticus in the 19th century is included in our film, "Tares Among the Wheat" as part of the untold history of the Bible.  The information in our film is all fully documented, and is a matter of public record.  That said, we do not attempt to declare any more of a conclusion than we are given by history itself.  Our film does not tell an audience that Simonides was the true author of Codex Sinaiticus, but neither do we say that he was not.   The story ends with a question mark rather than a period, because that's the way it really happened in the 19th century.  The matter was unresolved.

There is, unavoidably, much suspicion surrounding the history of Codex Sinaiticus, even apart from the story of Simonides.  This is admitted by the British Library, and by every truthful scholar and historian who has examined the circumstances of its discovery.  It is our observation that those who have raised objections to our film have been troubled by nothing less than the witness of real history.  They have been confronted by the truth, and have been made uncomfortable with the acknowledgement of it. 

NOTR

Comments

[Henry Thrun]

I really appreciate these articles, Chris!