Posts Tagged ‘Tares Among the Wheat’

Dr James Ach, J/A

James White did not fail to disparage Chris Pinto all throughout the debate while Chris Pinto was polite and reasonable throughout the debate and never returned White’s insults. White accuses Pinto of being an ignorant conspiracy theorist that claims that there is a Jesuit behind every bush. White adds a plethora of accusations against Pinto that Pinto has never said or claimed, and in White’s closing he even accused Pinto of using arguments for the sole purpose of “getting people to watch his film” (Tares Among the Wheat).

Something interesting about White’s cross-examination is he spends virtually all 15 minutes of his cross-examination of Pinto in attempting to prove that Pinto had a bias in favor of the Received Text in producing the film. Almost every question White asked was directed toward this end. SO WHAT IF HE DID? Does James White have a biased against the Majority Text and in favor of the Sinaiticus? Of course he does, HE WROTE A BOOK ABOUT IT. In fact, James White has even gone so far as to accuse us of not being able to fashion reasonable arguments and dialogue based upon the sole fact that we are King James Bible only adherents, and he said this on a radio program in response to an article that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE KING JAMES CONTROVERSY (See our article, Response to James White for evidence of this and links).

James White and others (like Fred Butler) have criticized even our own understanding of Biblical doctrine (because we are opposed to Calvinism) simply because we hold to a King James Bible only position, and yet one of our largest contributors to this website on the King James issue (Will Kinney) is a Calvinist. Yet White never criticizes Kinney’s personal beliefs because he is “KJVO”. James White has therefore absolutely no room whatsoever to offer one scintilla of criticism against Chris Pinto over any “bias” he may have had. Considering that White I believe would deem himself  a presuppositional apologist, how can a presuppositional apologist accuse anyone of having a bias when having presuppositions in itself means a bias that underwrites ones beliefs? White spent almost 15 minutes chasing a rabbit trail that proved futile and hypocritical.

White then attempts to attack Chris’s scholarship, which since White has touted himself as the “worlds leading apologist to Muslims”, we knew that was coming. A common tactic of White and his ilk: do as the Pharisees did to Christ and attack their education (John 7:15). However, Chris masterfully responded to White by saying that in a court of law, a juror is called upon to determine the credibility of experts and examine consistencies in testimony and whether it makes sense even though the juror themselves are not experts in the field being examined. Brilliant response from Chris on this attack from White. White presumes that only an expert in the collation of manuscripts can properly appreciate the time needed to invest in the kind of project that Simonides claimed to have achieved, and yet White himself is appealing to an audience of non experts expecting them to simply take his word for it. By the way, White never mentioned what experience HE HAS in collating manuscripts either, or that he has ever done so. White is merely quoting whom he considers experts in collations, which in essence is merely the same kind of evaluation of textual scholars that he does not afford Pinto the same courtesy of evaluating.

White then attempts to show that Pinto’s theory about Jesuit involvement is a figment of Pinto’s imagination. Pinto did attempt to show quotes from scholars which even included John Calvin to refute this, but White cut him off and did not allow Pinto to finish his rebuttal. Pinto mentioned Spurgeon and I wish that Pinto would have quoted what Spurgeon said, because Spurgeon is relied upon more by contemporary Calvinists as proof that Baptists have strong ties to Calvinism than by referring to John Calvin (Calvin, ironically, was a classmate of Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit Order.)

Spurgeon himself an admitted Calvinist, would likely be considered by White to be a conspiracy theory nutcase. Consider the following quotes by Spurgeon about the Jesuits and Rome,

[Spurgeon commenting on Westcott & Hort] “With those who treat the Bible as waste paper, and regard the death of Christ as no substitution, we have no desire for fellowship. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and , since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind’s eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task….. Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite. Hitherto they have not hatched out much worth reading. Their chickens are so much of the Roman breed, that we sometimes seriously suspect that, after all, Jesuitical craft may be at the bottom of this “modern thought”

White’s main argument is to explain how all of the additional scribal markings were introduced into the text, and why are the text type and penmanship apparently different from the manuscripts that Simonides claimed to have used, but this is easily answered. First of all, Did White get this information from the ORIGINAL TEXT that Tischendorf presented to the Westcott & Hort Revision Committee? Or is the manuscript White referring to the product of the Sinaiticus AFTER it had been in the possession of Westcott & Hort for twenty years? At least White does agree with Pinto (and all textual scholars) that Sinaiticus has 23,000 changes.

Pinto introduced other manuscripts that Simonides claimed to have used, of which White calls a speculative argument. But White’s argument itself is speculative. The only way to truly know whether or not White’s assumptions are valid is that if White himself is basing his evaluation off of the original text that Tischendorf had before it was used by Westcott & Hort. All of the differences that White alleges that separate the Sinaiticus from the manuscripts that Simonides claimed to have were clearly made by the Westcott & Hort committee who were in possession of these manuscripts for twenty years prior to their publication of the Revised Version of 1881-1885.

The documented evidence that White seems to ignore is that Simonides challenged Tischendorf to a public debate and told the public that he could PROVE that he was the author of the manuscripts. The most compelling part of this history is the fact-ignored by White-that SIMONIDES SHOWED UP TO THE DEBATE, Tischendorf DID NOT. Tischendorf had every opportunity to publicly denounce and humiliate Simonides for the several years that Simonides made his claims, and refused. Tischendorf had previously had to retract an accusation against Simonides when Simonides had also claimed authorship to a Greek version of The Sheperd of Hermas. Yet White did not address this glaring confirmation that if the Sheperd of Hermes was proven to be the work of Simonides, when no other scholar had  seen a Greek version of this, then why is it such a stretch to believe Simonides did not have the manuscripts available for the production of the Sinaiticus? Tischendorf was wrong about his accusation about Hermes, but then failed to show up to defend his accusations about the Sinaiticus, obviously because he wanted to avoid the embarrassment that Simonides was RIGHT.

White then cites manuscripts such as P46 that agree with Sinaiticus to show that Simonides could not have authored the Sinaiticus because those readings were unknown at the time of his claims. Isn’t it just ironic that these manuscripts magically appear out of nowhere after the publication of the RV and ASV of 1901? (The Catholic Church also did this with Erasmus in offering manuscripts unknown to anyone else, which Erasmus rejected) Furthermore, scholars themselves do not even agree on the veracity of the origins of P46 considering that there are DIFFERENT COPIES OF THEM. One version of P46 has 56 leaves to it (The Cheaster Beatty collection in Dublin, Ireland), and the other (6238) 30 leaves at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States. P46 was initially found with only 10 leaves, but when their authenticity was questioned, all of a sudden more leaves began to appear. This is the spurious scholarship that White and all anti KJVO “scholars” use as a basis for promoting the critical text theories and what White uses to validate the supposed early origin of the Sinaiticus. White emphasizes spurious verses where numerous variants agree with Sinaiticus, but does not discuss all of the numerous places they DISAGREE with each other as well as their frequent misspellings. (Eph 1:1, Sinaiticus reads JESUS CHRIST where P46 reads CHRIST JESUS, and omits “which are”; Philippians 1:14, the Sinaiticus and P46 do not agree on “to speak the word without fear”, P46 and Sinaiticus fight each other on “death is swallowed up in victory” in 1 Cor 15. In 2 Corinthians 2:14, Sinaiticus reads “OUR Lord Jesus Christ” whereas P46 reads “THE Lord Jesus Christ”. etc…etc…)

White even admits that one of the verses he cited as a proof text (Mark 14:30 “boisterous” which is actually in Matthew 14:30 not Mark 14;30) was itself A CORRECTION. Thus if this verse is cited as evidence that “proves” that Simonides could not have written Sinaiticus, but the verse itself is an ADMITTED CORRECTION, then how can White claim that this verse reflects a more ancient text type that was unavailable to Simonides?

Pinto pointed out that Simonides uncle had assisted in the collation of the  manuscripts and there is no reason to believe that this could not have been done by the time that Simonides made his manuscript. White claims that they had to have been collated during Simonides era, but that is simply not stated in the sources cited. White bases this on one single quote that states that Simonides “helped collate the manuscripts”, but that does not mean that Simonides collated ALL of the manuscripts that were used. There is no evidence that the majority of the manuscripts used by Simonides were not already collated for him, and that he only helped with the remaining manuscripts. White’s accusation on this point is even more speculative than that of which he accuses Pinto of. Considering the mount of manuscripts that are known to exist at Mount Athos where Simonides claimed to have written Sinaiticus as well as the fact that evidence does show that manuscripts were actually collated for Simonides regardless of whether or not White LIKES this fact, the weight of the evidence is in favor of Pinto’s assertion.

White also argues that Simonides age of 19 (or maybe he was 20, but who’s counting months!) prevented him from being such an expert. Pinto solidly refuted this by offering testimony given from Simonides contemporaries that knew him. However, would James White question the ability and intelligence of his own Calvinist theologians such as Jonathon Edwards who went to Yale at age 13? While White railed on Pinto for arguing certain possibilities, White himself creates his own assumptions about the possibilities of Simonides abilities which if White were honest, he would have to admit unless he can prove beyond the same doubt that he demanded of Pinto, that Simonides could not have possibly done the work he claimed, that his argument was also speculative.

In closing White wants to know “what the Bible really says” but White admits that the Codex Sinaiticus readings were “utterly unknown” to any of the contemporaries of Tischendorf of Simonides day. This brings up a great question for the anti KJV proponents like White who snidely ask KJVO proponents “where was the Bible before 1611?”. Where was the Bible before Codex Sinaiticus? If White admits that thousands of readings were “utterly unknown” to anyone, and yet his Reformation beliefs were developed by people using the Majority Text, does that mean that all of the beliefs derived from the Received Text of the Reformation should be re-examined now (including White’s Calvinism!)? It is ironic that White assails the Majority Text, but scholars like White, Wallace, McDowell, et al. will use the 5000 plus manuscripts that support the King James when arguing against atheists, and then criticize those same texts and give more weight to the critical text (less than 100 total manuscripts) when debating a King James Onlyist. THAT is some lopsided apologetics!

White as all critical text scholars, adopt the Darwinian theory that “things are evolving and getting better everyday”. That with the passage of time, more manuscripts become available that shed light on what God told us He would preserve when the texts were written. Thus, we will never know if what we have now is really the word of God because the issue is never settled. Just as some new scientific discovery may surface to disprove creation, so too, may some new variant arise that shows that Christians throughout the ages have all been wrong. There is never a time when the Christian can simply say, “I believe God created the world” and thus relax that no amount of new discoveries will disprove that. No professing Christian holding to the critical text theories of White can ever be sure that what they call a Bible today may have doubt cast on it tomorrow by some new discovery.

It is ironic that as much as White believes that God predetermined all of the “elect” from the foundation of the world, and believes that such persons are held in perseverance by God (which we at least sort of agree with although we disagree that our view of eternal security and perseverance of the saints are the same thing), that the very source of which that belief is based on can not be held to that same assurance. Common sense should tell anyone without having to have one hour of “scholarly training in textual criticism” that TWENTY THREE THOUSAND CHANGES to a manuscript can not possibly be similar enough to the Bible that has been accepted throughout the centuries by fundamental Christians to be called the word of God. As Pinto rightly pointed out, there are numerous Muslim and atheist websites that use this as an argument against the validity of the Bible, and have even quoted James White confessing that Luke 24:34 and John 7 readings are not in the Bible.

Of course, James White piously states that he debates Muslims all the time and this is not an issue. HOGWASH. We’ve heard the debates James and we know better. Shabir Ally used it quite a bit, and if James White ever spent an hour knocking on doors or going into Muslim neighborhoods WITNESSING instead of DEBATING all of the time, he would see these arguments up close and personal. While James White is bragging about being the “leading apologist to the Muslims”, I know of dozens of missionaries, and would even include my own daily discussions with Muslims, that I can guarantee you have personally led more Muslims to a personal relationship with Christ then White ever has from a 2 hour debate with a Muslim scholar, using a plain old King James Bible. This is where even though I disagree vehemently with the doctrines of Calvinism, I will at least give credit to some of their adherents like William Carey and others who were personal soul winners (even though Carey’s own pastor opposed him on using “means” in salvation presentations). Even while defending their views, and writing books about doctrine, they never forgot what their purpose was as sojourners on this temporary earth, and that was and is for us- taking the gospel door to door, street to street, person to person-what should be every Bible believers objective. I can’t say for sure I know who listens to White’s debates, but I can tell you I know for sure that the Jews and Muslims I have personally talked to today heard the gospel! as well as those missionaries who are in present danger doing the same. However, I can also tell you that “scholarship” like White’s has made it all the more difficult to convince skeptics, critics and various religions that the source of my beliefs is valid. Things that are different are not the same, which seems to be the most elementary and simple concept that bloated egotistical “scholars” bent on trying to prove their intellectual superiority neglect.

Furthermore, a factor that White and his ilk also neglect is that while White accuses KJVOs of propagating “conspiracies”, the apostles themselves claimed that the Bible was being attacked. Should we not expect those corrupt manuscripts to be somewhere today? If altering manuscripts was a problem then, why would it be a conspiracy theory to believe it is occurring now? Although scholars have argued “where are the good manuscripts”, “which ones are closer to the ‘originals'”, I think a neglected question is “where are the corruptions?”. Sure we know of “Bibles” such as the Watchtower’s New World Translation that are corrupt (which of course, is based on the texts of Westcott & Hort that White defends), but Paul and Peter seemed to be concerned about this problem among PROFESSING FUNDAMENTAL BELIEVERS WITHIN THE CHURCH. So if there were corrupt manuscripts, WHERE ARE THEY? The oh so obvious answer to that is what men like White spend a life time denying.

In  one comment in another video White made about the KJV’s archaic language (in which he pronounced the word “ado” as “adoh” as one crazy Baptist pointed out), White said we shouldn’t make people have to carry around a big 19th century dictionary with our Bibles to have to understand the KJV. Well I would posit Mr. White that we shouldn’t have to have 20 different translations on our desk when preparing an article or sermon, or have to figure out which “Bible” we are going to preach from on Sonday investing the same amount of time in figuring that out as to which bow tie one will wear to church.

God breathed the Scriptures for the common and simple man. Men like John Bunyon who couldn’t read, the drug addicts, prostitutes, homeless, for the simple and even the retarded. It was the scholars that Christ had the most problems with (Malachi 2:12) and the so-called intellectuals of the day (1 Corinthians chapter 1). God never intended for the Bible to be so difficult that you had to consult a priest to tell you if it was a Bible or not (anyone remember the Dark Ages?). Sure, the Ethiopian Eunuch asked “how can I understand except some man teach me” but he wasn’t questioning whether what he was reading was God’s word, and I bet he was reading ONE translation. Could you imagine if the Eunuch had 50 translations in his buggy? His question would have been different. He would have been asking, “which one of these is God’s word”. Of course, White would say “all of them”, 23,000 changes and all.

The reason “scholars” like this defend such trash is because their livelihoods DEPEND on it. Not only that, but they set themselves up as authorities on the Bible like a mechanic is to a car. The average person can’t possibly know “what God said” without an exhaustive knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and then textual criticism and all of its variations. He must consult 50 translations or so until he finds what he thinks is an accurate representation of what God said. The greatest revivals in history happened with ONE BOOK-ONE TRANSLATION. The believer in today’s world of scholarship can never be certain that what he reads is actually what God said. There is constant and consistent doubt cast on that premise by CHRISTIAN “scholars”, and because of this modern phenomena, many a believer’s faith have been shipwrecked.

Men like White are like showboat trial lawyers paid to convince the world that the Emperor is actually dressed when the reality is he’s standing stark naked in front of everyone. Let the Bible believer take his King James Bible and his “simple faith” and continue to win souls for Christ while the “scholars” pat themselves on the back for “winning debates” (as White so adamantly reminded Pinto).

One positive thing about the debate though, even though it wasn’t nearly long enough to get to all of the issues (which of course, White blames on Pinto’s video being 3 hours long. Ironcially, White has debates that are virtually just as long: James White’s debate with Jehovah’s Witness Greg Stafford is 2 hours and 55 minutes long. His debate with Michael Brown on Calvinism is 2 hours and 22 minutes long. His debate with Yusuf Ismail is 2 hours 59 minutes which is 2 minutes longer than Pinto’s documentary) at least the moderator kept the time right and never interrupted.

By Dr. James Ach and Dr. Elisha Weismann

James White recently produced a response to Chris Pinto’s documentary, “Tares Among the Wheat”, criticizing Pinto with a variety of rather silly attacks. Tares Among the Wheat is a documentary about the untold history behind the Codex Sinaiticus, one of minority texts used by liberal Bible “scholars” to undermine the King James Bible.

We are going to let Chris Pinto speak for himself by posting the links to his 2 responses to James White, as Pinto does a more than adequate job of addressing White’s “critiques”.  But there three things that we want to address before posting the links. First of all, James White and his sidekick, Fred Butler (Hip and Thigh) criticize the MUSIC used by Pinto in his documentary as “eerie” and argue that Pinto is using the music to prove a point in his documentary. James White claimed to have laughed hysterically when he heard the music. We here at DoRightChristians laughed hysterically when we heard James White use this as an argument against Pinto’s documentary, particularly when James White has done the exact same thing to Dave Hunt in his opening musical prelogue to his Radio Free Geneva show in cherry picking statements from Hunt about the Reformers and Calvinism while playing “eerie music” behind the quotes. Not only this, but James White has referred to the Ergun Caner controversy as “Caner’s JIHAD against Christianity”. Now we have already stated that we believe criticism against Caner has validity to it, but for White to call it a JIHAD AGAINST CHRISTIANS, and then claim that humble men like Pinto are painting false caricatures of historical characters such as Tischendorf is patently obnoxious and hypocritical. Of course, White has also done the same to us in that, since we are King James Only, we must not have the ability to understand the Trinity, Eternal Security, the virgin birth, Creation, the Resurrection, etc. According to James White, if you are not a Critical Text proponent, you can’t possibly have an accurate view of historical and Biblical Christianity.

Secondly, James White opens his show with comments that Pinto’s scholarship is not as good or as responsible as CNN journalism. So now when anyone critiques James White, they must be able to present scholarship that is as “good and responsible” as a liberal communist news organization. (Chris also addresses a hypocritical assessment White makes about a quote Pinto made from a BBC reporter which conflicts with White’s earlier CNN comment.)

This is the arrogant “Scholarship Only” attitude that men like White, Butler and practically all anti KJVO “scholars” take. If you don’t agree with them, you must not have “scholarship”. This is the same attitude that the Pharisees had against Christ: “How knoweth this man letters HAVING NEVER LEARNED” John 7:15. It is a deceptive tactic that White uses to inoculate his listeners before beginning his tirade against any KJVO apologist or those who support the Majority Text against the Critical Text. Butler uses the same tactics as well. He begins his articles with personal insults so that his readers begin with the idea that he is critiquing an absolute nut job and heretic before he even begins to address why he disagrees with the premise of his detractor’s arguments.

Here is just one comment Butler (five pointer) says about Pinto on his “Hip and Thigh” website,

The fact that Chris passes off his cherry-picked citations and sloppy research as “scholarship” and then reacts with hostility when people who know better challenge him also troubles me when you say he is a godly guy. 1

First of all, Chris Pinto never made the claim that his documentary was to be viewed as “scholarship”. But, since that is the criteria in which occult lovers like Butler base their judgments, thus the accusation follows. Considering that Butler himself has NEVER addressed the issue of Constantine Simonides on any of his anti KJV articles, and has only addressed it for the first time after Pinto’s documentary, shows that Butler himself never did the research on this issue before his unwarranted critique of Pinto’s video. Furthermore, Butler offered several opinions about Pinto’s documentary PRIOR to actually watching it, which he admits he just recently watched it for the first time in late November, 2013. Should we call that “sloppy scholarship” since Butler obviously “answered a matter before he heard it”? (Proverbs 18:13.) Then you will notice at the bottom of Butler’s comment he asks about finding Pinto’s church, denomination and pastor, matters which he could have easily  simply asked Pinto himself about, but instead, posts it to someone he really has no clue if they know this information or not, simply to give the reader the impression that there’s probably something even more sinister about Pinto if we all knew what his denomination was. A truly snake-in-the-grass tactic. Ironically enough, Butler recently posted an article about evangelism where he stated, “First, they mistakenly believe apologetics and evangelism is a discipline only carried out by trained professional like pastors, seminary grads, or those who have studied in some apologetic program.” Doesn’t seem like Butler practices what he preaches.

Chris never responded in hostility to White or Butler. According to Butler, anyone who disagrees with him and White are “hostile”, but yet would he consider himself “hostile” by his personal attacks on Pinto? Of course not, because he’s a hypocritical windbag. (And yes, you can call us hostile, we don’t mind 🙂 ) We have also shown how Butler does the exact same “cherry picking” that he accused Pinto of (although Butler and White’s accusation of “cherry picking” amounts to not presenting the Critical Text view in support of their arguments in which Pinto’s objective was rather to show history that has been neglected and has never been addressed by even White or Butler themselves until this documentary by Pinto was produced).

Fred Butler Uses The Force to Fight KJVO

Fred Butler Uses The Force to Fight KJVO

The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.” Malachi 2:12

Finally, the critical point that Pinto makes in his response is how the Codex Sinaiticus is used by skeptics and critics against Christians. Will Kinney recently demonstrated this in an article about the reading of Luke 23:34 where Muslims argue that the reading of “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” is not found in any of the so-called “earliest manuscripts”, and in support of their arguments, they QUOTE JAMES WHITE. (See article here). Pinto explains how the “scholarship” of James White and Butler actually help bolster Muslim and atheist attacks against the Bible, and how James White actually agrees with atheists like Bart Ehrman against Christians who believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God.  Thus so-called “scholarship” by White and Butler actually serves to embolden the beliefs that Muslims and atheists have against the Bible which in turn serves to create more confidence that Islam is right, and that Christianity is based upon a book that is full of forged documents and variants.

While James White and Butler think they are actually apologists defending Christianity, they have either by willful actions or just shear ignorance caused MORE harm to the belief in the validity and authenticity of the Scriptures and have rather helped to encourage the spread of Islam.

PINTOS FIRST RESPONSE

PINTOS SECOND RESPONSE

Additional Interesting Facts About White and Pinto

By the way, before James White changed over to the new Alpha & Omega Ministries website, we had document pictures of James White in the Caymen Islands donning a Scottish Kilt that had what appeared as a clear Freemason sporran (the purse like attachment worn in the front over the kilt). This photo has now been removed. It is also interesting that as an apologist, James White has never produced a definitive work on Freemasonry but makes only casual references to it in books and articles about Mormonism. In one article, (now removed) he merely shows how some of Mormonisms rituals were borrowed from Freemasons. However, this merely shows that the Mormon ritual was not original, it doesn’t make the case that Freemasonry in itself is inherently evil. Considering that White opposes Pinto’s view of possible Jesuit conspiracies, and Jesuits and Freemasonry have a very strong connection, it does not surprise us that White says very little publicly about Freemasonry.

White has also still refused to respond to us about the accusations that his sister leveled against him where she claims that he threatened her when she told them about their father sexually molesting her for several years. Response to James White.

Also read our article on how Muslims quote James White to prove that Luke 23:34 is not part of the Bible.

***

On Fred Butler’s older website, he gives a review of the Batman movie, “The Dark Knight Rises”. The article hosts a picture of Batman with the occultic Phoenix over Batman’s head. It is no wonder that the theme of the picture itself is titled “A Fire Will Rise” based on the Phoenix slogan “Out of the Ashes Beauty Will Rise”. This is the blatantly occultic theme of Freemasonry and other pagan religions that the Phoenix will one day arise from the ashes (bottomless pit, Rev 9:1) and recapture the world which he once lost because some angelic being (Christ!) stuffed him in this hole after burning him up in battle. Don’t believe us? See the explanation from a Masonic website for yourself. Or the following explanation from an admitted Illuminati website in the section, “New Word Order, Phoenix Resurgum“. The Phoenix is a very common occultic symbol which has been used in symbols everywhere from Freemasonry, the Roman Catholic Church, the US dollar bill, and even John Calvin’s college in Geneva.

Symbol of John Calvin's College with the Catholic Key, Phoenix and IHS Logo

Symbol of John Calvin’s College with the Catholic Key, Phoenix and IHS Logo

Butler gives the following rave review of the movie,

Overall, the movie is outstanding.

The main villain this time is an anarchist terrorist named Bane played by Tom Hardy.  The character has a lot of great lines and Hardy delivers them well, though his modulated voice reminded me of Christopher Plummer’s “General Chang” from Star Trek 6.

Butler even refers to film critics as APOLOGISTS, a term typically reserved for those who defend the Bible and Christianity.

I’m sure there are apologists who would say the battle started around 5 pm and by the time Batman gets in the mix, dusk had already fallen.  Maybe.

So ironic that Butler criticizes the length of Pinto’s documentary, but has no problem taking his wife and himself to see TRILOGIES of OCCULT MOVIES. Butler then goes on to state that, “What about any Christian-themed motifs seen in the film? I honestly did not go to this film looking for them…..That said, I didn’t go see The Dark Knight Rises because of the conservative themes or so-called Christian “redemptive” elements, though I will say the conservative ideas made the picture that much more enjoyable.” When Hollywood starts producing films with Christian motifs through movies like Star Wars, Batman, and Star Trek, we might as well agree with Darwin that humans came from monkeys and sit down and enjoy a banana or two with Fred.

So it is clear that Butler uses “the force” to gain his insights into “Biblical scholarship”. Perhaps if Pinto played the Batman Theme as the background for his documentary, Butler and White would have taken it more seriously. Would White criticize Butler over his affinity for occultic movies? Of course not-birds of a feather (or in this case, a Phoenix)……

This is your picture of how “scholarship” treats people that actually believe we have an inspired word of God that we can see, handle and read, and that the ordinary person can digest and study without having to get permission or authoritative interpretations from a priest. Not only have men like White and Butler actually helped the spread of Islam, but have attempted to bring Christians back into the Dark Ages where only the priest or “scholar” TRULY KNEW what the Bible REALLY said. And it is with this that we admonish our believers to file the “scholarship” of White and Butler, et al,  in the same place Tischendorf claimed to have found the Sinaiticus.

__________________________________

UPDATE 2/12/14

On James White’s 2/11/14 radio show, and on White’s Twitter account, White referred to me as a “loon” because I criticized his use of a Star Trek excerpt he used as an illustration in critiquing the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Creation Debate. Anyone who saw this excerpt could see that White was quoting the lines before they played which means he had watched this video numerous times before. I stated that there were plenty of examples in the Old Testament that could be used for story lines that researching such occultic TV shows like Star Trek is unnecessary.

I also criticized a Tweet that James White sent out to Albert Mohler about Hardy Boys novels:

Listening to @albertmohler talk about reading the Hardy Boys series…just as I did. Still have my old set, considering some Kindle eds!

White referred to me as an “Ultra Fundy” because I said that God’s people should ACT like God’s people and not be entertained and fascinated with Hollywood movies and novels.

When the world doesn’t see that you act any different than they do, why should they take you seriously when you tell them that living a life in Christ is so much better than what the world offers?

White had several followers comment on the matter. One named Bob Willits, identified himself as a cigar lover with a profile picture that displayed him puffing on his favorite Cuban. Another, Crododuck, displayed a picture of a naked men holding 2 cats on his shoulder, and another picture with a woman in skant clothes spreading her legs. When you fail to demand separation from the world, these are the type of followers you get.

By Dr. Elisha Weismann and Dr. James Ach

A recent article by the Pope adoring Fred Butler slandering Chris Pinto follows the logic of James White-among many others-contending that the Codex Sinaiticus was not actually discovered in a trash can as affirmed by “KJVOnlyists”. What is their evidence? From the donut- glaze- saturated keyboard of Butler is written:

Tischendorf’s second return in 1853 to the monastery was unfruitful, but on his third visit in 1859, he took a walk with a young Athenian steward who invited him back to his room for some refreshment. The steward told Tischendorf that he had read the OT in Greek and then revealed to him a bulky parcel wrapped in a red cloth. When he unwrapped it, it contained not only the sheets Tischendorf saw in 1844 that were being used to light fires, it contained some 346 parchments from the same volume.

Quip and Lie (Fred Butler, the author of the Hip and Thigh blog) as most others, conveniently leave out the events that lead up to this red-wrapped bundle of apostate joy. First, they lay emphasis that the Codex was “neatly wrapped” in red cloth, and then secondly, they note that a basket is not the same thing as a garbage can, and wallah, no evidence exists that any part of the Codex was found in a garbage can. Thus essentially, the argument for whether or not the Codex was found in a garbage can comes down to semantics and a little history revision (by deliberately omitting Tischendorf’s own statements regarding how the Codex was found).

Butler has a bad habit of quoting bias sources as well. In one article again slandering Chris Pinto, Butler sites Frederick Kenyon who claimed that Constantine SImonides, who laid claim to the actual authorship of Codex Sinaiticus, was only 15 years old when he claimed to have compiled manuscripts for the transcription of the Codex, and that therefore Simonides could not have possibly had the scholarship necessary at such a young age to perform such a rigorous and pedantic task (although, as a Calvinist, Butler would have no problem with the scholarship of Jonathon Edwards who went to Yale at age 13).  However, Kendrick admitted, as does history, that Simonides was born in 1820, and his first claim to the Codex occurred in 1840. That would have made Simonides 20 years old, not 15. After confronting Fred Butler with this glaring inconsistency, Butler removed the date of Simonides birth year from his article, and indicated no correction, although he still maintains that Simonides was only “a teenager”. Butler defends his usage of “teenager” by claiming Simonides could have been 19, but Butler makes this assertion in support of Kenyon who claimed that Simonides was only 15. Butler cited Kenyon as an authority on the veracity of Simonides claims, but then capitulates and obfuscates on the reliability of Kenyon’s facts.

From Tischendorf’s own testimony he writes the following:

It was in April, 1844, that I embarked at Leghorn for Egypt. The desire which I felt to discover some precious remains of any manuscripts, more especially Biblical, of a date  which would carry us back to the early times of Christianity, was realized beyond my expectations. It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like this, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-five sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire

First of all, how could Tischendorf claim that these were the oldest manuscripts he’d seen without any examination of them first?*. Secondly, the story shows clearly that the manuscripts that were in the basket were there for the purpose of awaiting incineration. If that’s not a “trash can” excuse the puppies for drinking out of the kitten’s milk bowl.

Dean Burgon, who thoroughly debunked the work of Westcott & Hort (whom Butler considers “good godly evangelical scholars”-more on that later) writes,

“We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, “solely to their ascertained evil character”; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;

“while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually got deposited in the wastepaper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai.

“Had B and ALEPH been copies of average purity, they must long ago since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight.” The Revision Revised , pg 319.

Even Norman Geisler, who is not only NOT KJVO, but wrote an endorsement for James White’s “The King James Only Controversy” shown on the cover of White’s book writes,

“It was found in the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai by the German Count Tischendorf, who was living in Prussia by permission of the czar…”On his first visit (1844), he discovered forty-three leaves of vellum, containing portions of the LXX (I Chronicles, Jeremiah, Nehemiah and Esther), in a basket of scraps which the monks were using to light their fires. He secured it and took it to the University Library at Leipzig, Germany. It remains there, known as the Codex Frederico-Augustanus…Geisler & Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, 1968.

Popular KJVO critic, James White, although adamantly denying that the Codex was found in a waste basket, says of the finding of Tischendorf,

Constantin von Tischendorf embarked on a journey to the Middle East in 1844 searching for biblical manuscripts. While visiting the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, he noted some scraps of parchment in a basket that was due to be used to stoke the fires in the oven of the monastery. Upon looking at the scraps he discovered that they contained part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

This was exactly what he was looking for, and so he asked if he could take the scraps to his room for examination, warning the monks that they should not be burning such items. His obvious excitement worried the monks, who became less than cooperative in providing further information about manuscripts at the monastery. King James Only Controversy, pp 32-33

Thus we have clear and convincing evidence that the Codex was FIRST discovered in a basket, and that basket was used to reserve fodder for kindling. Now perhaps White and Butler call fodder for fire from materials one wishes to discard by burning as non-trash, but common sense modern vernacular would have no issues with the term “waste basket”. To offer such criticism merely because the manuscripts were not placed in Glad bags and the “basket” did not have a Flip Wilson lid on it is shear semantic nonsense.

Furthermore, White and Butler, et al, lay emphasis on Tischendorf’s receipt of the REMAINDER of the Codex wrapped in red cloth as evidence that the Codex was not found in a dumpster. However, Tischendorf’s own writings show that he obtained his initial manuscripts directly from the waste basket, and it was only LATER that he gained REMAINING manuscripts that were wrapped in cloth. BUT! where did THOSE manuscripts “wrapped in red cloth” come from?? Again, from Tischendorf’s own testimony relaying what the monk had given him he writes,

 Scarcely had he entered the room when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said, “And I too have read a Septuagint, i. e., a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy;” and so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas.

Notice what Tischendorf says about the manuscripts in the red wrapped cloth, “ which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket”. So whatever manuscripts Tischendorf did not obtain 15 years ago from the waste basket, he collected the remainder on this particular visit, and the manuscripts that White and Butler, et al, so vivaciously remind us were “wrapped neatly in red cloth” were themselves TAKEN FROM THE SAME BASKET WHERE TISCHENDORF OBTAINED HIS FIRST MANUSCRIPTS 15 YEARS AGO. 

Oh the lengths that Bible agnostics will go to in defending their beloved Pope and his Jesuit minions.

Butler’s Veneration of Westcott & Hort

In response to a blogger named “Sandy” who asks “So do you really believe there is no counter reformation being led by Jesuits?”, Butler replies,

No, not today, nor in the manner that Chris Pinto describes. You have to consider the fact that a number of men committed to the importance of Sinaiticus are Bible-believing, God-fearing, evangelical Christians who are squarely anti-Catholics. Pinto’s thesis implicates them as either being duped by the Jesuits, which would throw their spiritual discernment into being seriously questioned, or unbelieving Catholic sympathizers who are secretly aiding the Jesuits. Both of those scenarios are patently absurd.

First of all, what a naive imbecile to believe that the Jesuits have no CURRENT plans involving a “counter-reformation”. Let’s not forget that Rome’s current “vicar” is a Jesuit. Sure, Butler and White will tell you that Rome has a few bad doctrines, all short of naming the Pope as an antichrist and the Catholic Church as a CULT. But nevertheless, any casual perusal of the Jesuit Oath reveals that a Jesuit will “to a Jew become a Jew, to a Calvinist a Calvinist, to a Protestant a Protestant”.

The first men “committed to the importance of the Sinaiticus” were Westcott & Hort, who comprised a committee for the “revision” of the King James Version in 1881. The following are the “good godly evangelical” beliefs of Westcott & Hort of which almost all modern Bible translations owe their lineage,

“I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly.” (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

“Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.” (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

“He [Jesus Christ] never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.” (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

“(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ.”…(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created.”

“”…Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book.”

“But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with … My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period.”

I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adams fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues.

“Further I agree with them [Authors of Essays and Reviews] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology … Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible.”

“I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father.” (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77)

The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical.” (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)

There is OVERWHELMING evidence from the writings of Westcott and Hort themselves as well as their children they had great veneration for Mary and the church of Rome, had heretical views of the deity of Christ, salvation, the inspiration of Scripture, and yet these men are whom White and Butler consider “good godly evangelical” scholars? Even Butler’s favorite Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon wrote of Westcott & Hort,

“With those who treat the Bible as waste paper, and regard the death of Christ as no substitution, we have no desire for fellowship. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and , since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind’s eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task….. Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite. Hitherto they have not hatched out much worth reading. Their chickens are so much of the Roman breed, that we sometimes seriously suspect that, after all, Jesuitical craft may be at the bottom of this “modern thought”.

But what about Tischendorf’s own beliefs? Tischendorf admittedly claimed to follow in the footsteps of Karl Lachmann**- who was known to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures and was a German philosophical rationalist- and that Tischendorf was a professor within the German universities of whom applied rationalism to the texts of the Bible. Between Tischendorf’s 7th and 8th editions of the Codex were over 8,000 changes to his own manuscripts. Tischendorf did not believe that any English version extant in his time (let alone the KJV) was based on earlier manuscripts, but were all 15th century productions, and thus he did not believe that any inspired or infallible copies of the Bible existed in any language in any version. Butler himself even admits this stating that,

Tischendorf believed the TR, from which the KJV had been translated, was an inadequate text because it was not based upon the “best” manuscripts of the NT.  He believed better manuscripts were waiting to be discovered and their discovery would only serve to refute the skeptics and critics who wrote those trashy novels about the life of Jesus.

So in other words, God was not capable of preserving His word throughout history, and we must all wait for “better” manuscripts which have not yet been discovered to see if we still have the word of God. This is no different from evolutionary thinking, that somehow new evidence will surface to discredit creation, and therefore Christian scientists must stay apprised of all of the archaeological finds of atheists because God forbid they find something that proves there really is no God. Most logical Christians do not need that kind of “evidence”, they believe by faith that there is an Intelligent Designer behind the creation of the universe. It’s too bad this logic doesn’t apply to most Christians when it comes to the preservation of the word of God that we are told to “preach in season and out of season”. We are expected to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” from a plethora of manuscripts that wicked scholars can’t even agree on to verify that we actually have the word of God.

And as Pinto pointed out, and as history attests, Tischendorf was granted quite a liberal audience and attention from not only the Pope of Rome, but many of the Pope’s minions. It doesn’t seem to bother Butler that the Pope would permit such welcome to a supposed Protestant “scholar” all the while burning Protestant “heretics” in the dungeons of Roman monasteries. Why were such exceptions extended to Tischendorf from the Roman Papacy that were CLEARLY not extended to any other Protestant minister?

Ironically, Butler attempts to prove Tischendorf was not “in league” with Rome by citing Rome’s oft attempts to erect a “wall” against Tischendorf’s efforts to peruse the manuscripts more thoroughly. Well then doesn’t that beg the question that if Tischendorf was never able to gain a full examination of the texts that the reliability of his own translations of the Codex should be questionable? The very fact that Codex Sinaiticus has Rome written all over it (in some MSSmss, quite LITERALLY with the Roman Imprimatur stamped on the pages) does not seem to make Butler or any other KJVO critic blink, but then neither does Butler’s own version of events claiming that Tischendorf’s manuscript translation is reliable while at the same time admitting that Tischendorf was not permitted a proper perusal of the underlying texts.

Butler proposes that a few scant quotes cited by James Bentley quoting Tischendorf prove his “orthodoxy”. Tischendorf has never published any clear indication that he was a born again Christian, and there are no clear writings extant of just exactly what his beliefs were which is quite odd for anyone claiming to be Protestant. As prolific a writer as Tischendorf was regarding the Codex, one would think he would have produced a clear treatise on his beliefs. Yet Butler relies on Bentley attempts to use a mere scintilla of quotes from Tischendorf which are no different from the professions of any modern Roman priest to prove Tischendorf was a believer. Butler in defending the “orthodoxy” of Tischendorf, offers only the following quote,

He was passionately determined to refute those who were destroying the faith of the Christian world. Many Christians desperately longed for such a refutation. In a pamphlet published in March 1864 Tischendorf wrote, ‘May my writing serve this end: to make you mistrust those novel theories upon the Gospels — or rather, againstthem — which would persuade you that the wonderful details which the Gospels give of our gracious Saviour are founded upon ignorance and deceit.’ [Bentley, 37]

What Catholic priest or even a Jehovah’s Witness would not claim that the Bible contains the “wonderful details which the Gospels give of our gracious Saviour”? Is this a full-proof evidence of fundamental Christian belief? Hardly. Note that Bentley asserts that “Many Christians desperately longed for such a refutation”. A refutation of what? If Tischendorf was a Protestant, then the only refutation “many Christians” were seeking for would be a refutation AGAINST ROME.  Butler claims that Tischendorf was an “evangelical apologist” with absolutely ZERO evidence for such an absurd claim. Tischendorf has absolutely no recorded documentation of refuting any of the heresies extant in his day and thus accordingly, none of these apologetic works are cited by Butler. The only “refutations” that were extant regarding textual evidences were Rome’s disdain over the Textus Receptus and King James Bible. Somehow, Tischendorf supposing to be a Protestant minister, questions the validity of the Protestant Bible from he would naturally have derived any of his Protestant beliefs, begins his search for the “better manuscripts” coincidentally at a CATHOLIC monestary? Also, something that Pinto nor any of his critics have observed, is that not only is it clear that Tischendorf altered the manuscripts, but that monks themselves could have done so in the 15 years between Tischendorf’s initial discoveries, and his return to the monastery on which he obtained the remaining manuscripts wrapped in red cloth. There is clear evidence that that which was wrapped in the red cloth was obtained from the pile of scraps that Tischendorf did not make off with. It begs the question as to why the monks burned any manuscripts at all, and had others wrapped in a red cloth only to remain stagnant and unutilized in a monastery. It is likely that the monks did not know what they were burning, but then once Tischendorf published his first discoveries, and knowing the reception and adulation it was given by the Pope, took the remaining copies, altered them, and then placed them in the red cloth expecting Tischendorf’s return.

Butler’s defense of Tischendorf is inadequate, defies logic and common sense, is often contradictory and often cites as evidence facts not only missing from his own articles but wholly absent from history. The real question is why skeptics such as Butler and White are so quick to vilify Chris Pinto and any other person defending the Textus Receptus or King James Bible over a video that was created that is not specifically in defense of the King James Bible (although Butler MUST paint this label on Pinto in order to classify him as a KJVO so that he can by proxy attach all of his other ridiculous anti- KJVO arguments against anyone that dares lift a hint of criticism against the venerable Tishcendorf, Westcott or Hort). Why go to such extreme lengths to defend such a shady history that follows Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort? Butler dances with sparklers that Pinto can not give absolute proof of a conspiracy, but neither can Butler nor those he cites offer any logical explanation as to why the Roman Catholic Church was so receptive to Tischendorf. Considering that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the involvement of Rome than against it, it certainly casts great doubt upon the credibility of Butler and his ilk in proffering such a vigorous defense of a “church” they claim to oppose.

I’ll offer my own “conspiracy theory”. Jesuits are known for joining the ranks of their enemies even to the tune of slandering their own religion (Catholics) if it means a greater victory in the long run. Critics like White and Butler will gladly quip “We debate Catholics so we couldn’t possibly be pro-Catholic” as evidence that they would not be likely candidates for Jesuit infiltrators. Their positions on the Catholic church while appearing to cast some of their doctrines in a negative light, are a far cry from labeling the Catholic church for what it really is: a beast from the horns of the dragon straight out of the pits of hell (Revelation 17), that has made every effort to destroy belief in the word of God as the inerrant and preserved revelation of God’s instructions to His church. Just as the Catholic church adopted the “if you can’t kill them [Christians] join them” and made Christianity the state religion of Rome, so too, has the Catholic church maintained that if they can’t destroy the Bible by burning it along with those who translated any anti-Vatican texts, they may as well “join” the legitimate copies of the Bible with amalgamations of corrupted texts, and encourage critics like Butler, White, Nestle, Aland, Norris, Kutilek, Carson, Bryce, Wallace, et al, to help promote their validity. If they are not somehow directly involved with the RCC, they are certainly guilty as co-conspirators in her treachery.

Perhaps Butler’s motivation is the promise of the latest Darth Vader action figure in a package signed by the Pope that he can add to his collection of Star Wars paraphernalia. How any supposed God-fearing Christian could have such adoration for  blatantly occultic Hollywood trash is bewildering.

Edited and Updated by Dr James A, PhD

_____________________________________________________

* From The Forged Origins of the New Testament, Tony Bushby writes,

The revelations of ultraviolet light testing


In 1933, the British Museum in London purchased the Sinai Bible from the Soviet government for £100,000, of which £65,000 was gifted by public subscription. Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and “few scholars had set eyes on it” (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3). When it went on display in 1933 as “the oldest Bible in the world” (ibid.), it became the centre of a pilgrimage unequalled in the history of the British Museum.


Before I summarize its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing. These anomalies were exposed as a result of the months of ultraviolet-light tests carried out at the British Museum in the mid-1930s. The findings revealed replacements of numerous passages by at least nine different editors.

Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex SinaiticusH. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).

**

Tischendorf’s first find contained 43 leaflets which he dubbed the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, in dedication to Frederick Augustus of Saxony, a Roman Catholic, married to a Roman Catholic, and buried at Katholische Hofkirche, a Roman Catholic cemetary.

Tischendorf also notes in his first chapter of “When Were Our Gospels Written” (1874) that,

At the same time, the committee of the Religious Tract Society of
Zwickau expressed a desire to circulate this pamphlet, provided it were
recast and adapted for popular use. Although I had many other
occupations, I could not but comply with their request, and without
delay applied myself to the task of revising the pamphlet. I was glad
of the opportunity of addressing in this way a class of readers whom my
former writings had not reached; for, as the real results of my
researches are destined to benefit the church at large, it is right
that the whole community should participate in those benefits.

This popular tract, in the shape in which I now publish it, lacks, I
admit, the simple and familiar style of the usual publications of the
Zwickau Society; but, in spite of this fault, which the very nature of
the subject renders inevitable, I venture to hope that it will be
generally understood. Its chief aim is to show that our inspired
gospels most certainly take their rise from apostolic times, and so to
enable the reader to take a short but clear view of one of the most
instructive and important epochs of the Christian church.

In sitting down to write a popular version of my pamphlet, the Zwickau
Society also expressed a wish that I should preface it with a short
account of my researches, and especially of the discovery of the
Sinaitic Codex, which naturally takes an important place

The “Zwickau prophets,” i.e., Nicholas Storch, Thomas Drechsel, and Mark Stübner, etc., claimed to be prophets of God and to have received revelations directly from God. They were leading an anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, spiritualistic attempt at communism and anarchy based on a view of taking the millennium by force as prophets. Thomas Münzer (1490–1525) was a radical figure in the Reformation who became a leader in the Peasants’ Revolt of 1524–1525. From this man we get a clear window into all of his associates: