James A., PhD
One of the accusations against Constantine Simonides’ claims to being the actual author of the Codex Sinaiticus is that he was a forger (you would think being a forger, if true, actual FAVORS Simonides, not discredits him!), and thus was a liar. Although, no accusation of forgery against Simonides was ever proven, and at least on one occasion, Constantine Tischendorf had to retract a claim against Simonides regarding the Shepherd of Hermes.
In a debate with Chris Pinto, James White sided with the Romanists that Simonides was a forger. But there’s a glaring omission in White’s debate tactic against Pinto. White demanded that Pinto point to the examplar that Simonides used for Codex Sinaiticus if there was to be any truth to Simonides’ claims. I personally thought this line of debate was irrelevant given that Simonides produced 2 Greek copies of Hermas and Barnabas unknown to exist any where else in Christendom, so he obviously had exemplars that nobody else seen, but I digress. What’s interesting about White’s logic is that not once did he ever attempt to point to any exemplars that Simonides used for his so-called “forgeries”.
Wouldn’t that be important? I mean, come on, if it was important for Pinto to produce evidence of the exemplar Simonides used for Sinaiticus, would it not be equally important to point to the exemplars that Simonides used in documents he was accused of forging? That fact that White omits this shows he knew that line of questioning was a red herring that had nothing to do with Simonides claims to the authorship of Sinaiticus.
The debate tactics and logic of the rabid anti King James Only crowd is nearly as bad as the fake news main stream media.
Do Right Christians 