by Christian J. Pinto “The history of this manuscript is wrought with mystery, politics, and perhaps even some deception …”  Source: The Friends of CSNTM (Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts) website, featuring Dr. Daniel Wallace  This is our detailed response to a video that was posted (some years ago) in response to our film, Tares Among the Wheat.  Because we believe the issues are an important part of the history of the Bible, and the true history of Codex Sinaiticus — for posterity’s sake, and for those who may choose to investigate these issues in the future, we are reposting our response for the benefit of any new research into the subject matter. The video in question features a presentation given by Dr. Daniel Wallace, who is a professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, speaking on the subject of Constantine Simonides and his claim to have authored the Codex Sinaiticus in 1840 (a manuscript ordinarily dated to the fourth century).  Our film presents evidence from the 19th century that strongly suggests Simonides may very well have been the true author of the codex, and indeed, he went to his grave defending his claim.  However, Dr. Wallace supports the predominantly held view that his story was false and presents a number of arguments to the contrary.  We should also mention that his video presentation is primarily about Tischendorf and the discovery of the codex, during which, he covers the history of the Simonides affair. Find the full video of Dr. Wallace here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVSzBGXXL1Y Perhaps the most important part of Dr. Wallace’s argument is his assertion that the Codex Sinaiticus was actually seen by an Italian explorer in the year 1761 – long before Constantine Simonides was even born.  But was this the case?  The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the flaws in Dr. Wallace’s conclusions by examining the historic information he presents point by point.  We generally believe most scholars today are largely unaware of the specifics surrounding the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, and the story of Simonides in general.  Our desire is that a more perfect history be established concerning this controversy, for the benefit of the Biblical record.  The faith of believers in the Bible as the infallible Word of God is often shaken because of claims made about Codex Sinaiticus and the dubious textual theories that have been developed since its “discovery” in 1859.  Also, we should include a word about Dr. Wallace and his view of the biblical text.  Conservative Christians seem to think that Wallace shares their belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, however, this is not the case.  Many examples could be given, and if one searches the internet for Dr. Wallace on the subject of inerrancy, he will quickly learn that his views are unorthodox at best.  But in a particular article he published, titled: Fifteen Myths About Bible Translation, he said the following: “Scholars are not sure of the exact words of Jesus.  Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. …In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is a false comfort.” In contrast, Jesus said: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35) Now, back to the Codex Sinaiticus debate. HISTORIC BACKGROUND The first 43 leaves of the Codex Sinaiticus were found by the German scholar, Constantine von Tischendorf in 1844, at St. Catherine’s Monastery at the base of what is called Mt. Sinai in Egypt.  While he was very secretive about his original discovery, Tischendorf later claimed that the pages he found had been jettisoned by the Greek monks in a rubbish basket, and were destined to be burned in the fire.  The monks to this day claim that he stole them.  Tischendorf visited the monastery a second time in 1853, where he discovered a fragment of Genesis; but his next major discovery of the codex was in 1859, when he found the New Testament portion and part of the Old, along with the Epistle of Barnabas and a partial copy of the Shepherd of Hermas.  At this point, the manuscript was named Codex Sinaiticus, and declared to be the oldest Bible ever found.  Yet in 1860, when the Greek paleographer Constantine Simonides saw the first facsimiles in Liverpool, England, he said, “I at once recognized my own work.”  He claimed that he had created the manuscript twenty years earlier, and that it was intended to be a gift for the Czar of Russia, something planned by his uncle, (a Greek monk named Benedict) and carried out by Simonides as a young calligrapher.  The story was astonishing, and a debate concerning the issue raged back and forth from 1860 to 1864, much of it in the newspapers of England.  In short, the critics of the 19th century rejected his claims.  Simonides published a final work in 1864, in which he reaffirmed all that he had said, and then left London, never to return.  TREGELLES & BRADSHAW Dr. Wallace mentions the opinions of the 19th century scholars, Samuel P. Tregelles and Henry Bradshaw, both of whom opposed the claims of Simonides.   But could it be said that these men in any way settled the issue?  Tregelles had a comment published in the newspapers in which he said that: “the story of Simonides is as false and absurd as possible.”  Yet in response to this comment, a publication called The Literary Churchman, December 16, 1862, wrote the following: “… we are not prepared, at this moment, to say, with Dr. Tregelles, that the statements of Simonides are ‘as false and absurd as possible.’  Tischendorf applies these terms ‘false and absurd’ just now to Tregelles himself: and indeed the proverbially furious way in which critics abuse one another, and the pettiness of their jealousies have had much illustration of

By Christian J. Pinto “Let favor be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly …” (Isaiah 26:10) The situation in England right now ought to provide a sober warning that the political advancement of Islam in the Western world is not only dangerous for the national security of any country, but also for sharing the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. Since “hate speech” laws have been developed as political weapons by the globalists, they are increasingly aimed at completely outlawing Christian doctrine or teaching, as much as possible.  The U.K.’s Labour Party recently published Labour’s Islamophobia Policy.  This doctrine, which is really a method of imposing Sharia policy under a different name, has been in development for years.  Back in 2009, the intellectual atheist, Christopher Hitchens warned the world that the term “Islamophobia” would one day be weaponized to attack free speech in the future.  “Resist it while you can,” he argued. The Labour Party website says that “There is no single agreed definition of Islamophobia,” but that the APPG (All Party Parliamentary Group) defines it as: “… rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” Yes, seriously.  Back in 2017, the website Jihad Watch reported on the case of Victoria Wasteney, who has been persecuted by the increasingly Socialist and Sharia-oriented system in the U.K.   “A Christian therapist in England who was suspended after being accused of evangelizing to a Muslim colleague has suffered another loss in court.” A Christian woman named Victoria Wasteney is being punished by the increasingly socialist system in the U.K. for the offense of witnessing to a Muslim co-worker, and reportedly “trying to convert her to Christianity.”  While Wasteney was under the impression that she and her Muslim colleague were friends, she was shocked to learn that her friend was one who filed the complaint against her.  If one knows the history of England, it is truly disheartening to think that the land of William Tyndale, Myles Coverdale, John Bunyan, Oliver Cromwell (whose motto was “Christ, not man is King”), and Charles H. Spurgeon (known as the “Prince of Preachers”) should be now given over to leaders who have institutionalized such hostility to the Christian faith.  In the 19th century, historian J.A. Wylie wrote that:  “God raised up Britain and gave her greatness beyond the measure of all former empires.  For what end?  That she might subserve the interests of the Gospel …. This is our first duty as a nation.  The neglect of it is our first sin, no matter what other duties we make ourselves busy about.”  (Wylie, “The Jesuits: their Moral Maxims and Plots”) But how has the situation in England deteriorated to such a point that a woman witnessing for Jesus Christ is now seen as a violator of English law?  The answer can be partly traced to a major movement that began after the Second World War and continues to this day.  In fact, it’s an issue that has stirred up a lot of controversy in the Christian community of late.  THE INTERFAITH INVASION The interfaith dialogues that were launched in the 1950’s have undoubtedly provided the bridge by which Islam has been able to invade the West – something it has been unable to do for 1400 years.  But now, with the help of home-grown socialists, many of whom are professing “Christians” (liberals of virtually every denomination) who act as a coalition of Judas Iscariots, the countries once dedicated to Christ are being betrayed.      The website “Oxford Islamic Studies Online” (whose Editor in Chief is the Jesuit’s Georgetown University professor, John L. Esposito) documents the following about the so-called “dialogue movement,” that can be traced to Rome and the World Council of Churches: “The dialogue movement began during the 1950s when the WCC and the Vatican organized a number of meetings between Christian leaders and representatives of other religious traditions. These initial efforts resulted in the formation of new institutions. In 1964, toward the end of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican (Vatican II), Pope Paul VI established a Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions to study religious traditions, provide resources, and promote interreligious dialogue through education and by facilitating local efforts by Catholics. Several major documents adopted at Vatican II (1962–1965) focused on interfaith relations.” Furthermore, Vatican II went out of its way to promote Islam in its Constitutions, Decrees and Declarations, in a chapter titled “The People of God”: “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, first among whom are the Moslems: they profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God …” In 1985, Pope John Paul II declared the following to over 80,000 Muslims in Casablanca: “We believe in the same God, the one God, the Living God who created the world …” Only by presenting the false argument that Christians and Muslims worship the same God could the Islamic religion have been systematically entered into so many historically Christian countries.  We are told that because we essentially believe the same things, there is no reason not to give Islam an equal place in Western society.  It is important for believers today to understand that none of our Christian forefathers (prior to the 20th century) would ever have agreed to such a worldview. FORGIVE AND FORGET THE PAST? The doctrines of Vatican II are undoubtedly the reason why much of Rome’s leadership shamelessly promotes Islam, and even suppresses their fellow Catholics who speak against it.  Islamic leaders have never acknowledged it to be a crime that they have incessantly raped and murdered Christians throughout history; yet, in the 1960’s the Vatican actually declared: “Over the centuries many quarrels and dissensions have arisen between Christians and Muslims.  The sacred council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual

By Christian J. Pinto The new Pope Leo recently blessed a block of ice.  It was reported that the block of ice was “more than 20,000 years old, broken off due to climate change …” (Source: International Union Superiors General website)   It was described by critics as a “Pagan Earth-Worship Ritual” (Newsweek, Oct. 2, 2025) Since the election of Pope Francis back in March of 2013, there have been many debates about the Marxist character of the papacy, especially since Cardinal Bergoglio was the first official Jesuit pope.  Prior popes had been seen as agents of the Jesuit Order, since they had a close association with them.  Perhaps the best modern example would be Pope Pius XII, who is known as “Hitler’s Pope.”  There is also Pope Leo XIII who was the pupil of a Jesuit mentor who is known as the father of social justice doctrine, which can be traced back to the 19th century. But first, a little background on the order who are officially known as “The Society of Jesus” for any who may be unfamiliar. JOHN ADAMS on the JESUITS. “I do not like the late resurrection of the Jesuits.  They have a General, now in Russia, in correspondence with the Jesuits in the U.S. who are more numerous than everybody knows.  Shall we not have swarms of them here? … If ever any Congregation of Men could merit, eternal Perdition on Earth and in Hell … it is this company of Loyola.” (John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, May 6, 1816) CHARLES SPURGEON on the JESUITS. “What horrors have been wrought in thy name, O Christ of God!  Men have, indeed, pierced thee, and they who take thy name and call themselves of ‘the Society of Jesus’ have been chief enactors of these abominations.”   (Charles H. Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit: sermons, Parts 261-272, p. 379) There are many historic warnings about the order, who were driven out of the various countries of Europe dozens of times, many of them Catholic countries, before they were abolished by the Pope in 1773.  They were restored in 1814, which prompted Adams’ comment to Jefferson.  As we show in our documentary, American Jesuits, the warnings about the order continued throughout the 19th century by a whole variety of writers, many of them such as the Marquis de Lafayette, Samuel F.B. Morse, Napoleon Bonaparte, J.A. Wylie, Otto von Bismarck, Charles Spurgeon, and yes, even Abraham Lincoln.  Bismarck, in particular warned that the Jesuit General (whose name was Peter Jan Beckx) was working with Karl Marx.  Of course, it is important to remember that the order operated in a covert manner, in ways that were unknown to the average person at the time.  It is important to remember that the Jesuits operate like an intelligence community, as if they are the CIA or KGB for the Pope.  Yet their involvement with Socialism was recorded by prominent Catholics as well as Protestants, including a former nun named M.F. Cusack and a German ex-Jesuit priest named Count Paul Von Hoensbroech who “left the Society because he found that the Jesuits in Germany were the chief leaders and fomenters of Socialism in that country.” (See: Rome and the War and Coming Events in Britain, by Watchman, p. 76) Bear in mind that all these things happened prior to 1901.  In other words, long before the Bolshevik Revolution, or the revolutions in China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.  It can only give us pause to wonder what, or who, was fully behind those revolutions.  In his renowned book, The Brothers Karamazov, the famed Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote: “We know the Jesuits, they are spoken ill of …. They are simply the Romish army for the earthly sovereignty of the world in the future, with the Pontiff of Rome for Emperor … that’s their ideal … It’s a simple lust of power, of filthy earthly gain, of domination — something like a universal serfdom with them as masters — that’s all they stand for.” Dostoevsky’s book was completed in the year 1880, just a few months before he died.  An article in The TELEGRAPH (Jan. 8, 2014) reported the following: “Amid accusations of Marxism, Pope Francis has turned the Vatican into the spearhead of radical economic thinking. Unfettered global capitalism has met its match at last. Ever since Bishop Bergoglio picked St Francis of Assisi to be his guiding inspiration …. Liberation Theology is taking over the Vatican a quarter of a century after John-Paul II systematically sought to stamp out the ‘singular heresy’ in the radical parishes …” Many people were confused about why a Jesuit pope promote Marxism.  The reason is because has been largely forgotten (or removed from history books) how it was well known in the 19th century that Communism sprang from Rome. The term Social Justice was first coined in 1843 by a Jesuit priest named Luigi Taparelli — five years before Marx published The Communist Manifesto (1848).    Centuries earlier, it was the Jesuit Order who were credited with engineering what would later be called Marxist or Socialist philosophy through their Reductions of Paraguay in the 17th and 18th centuries.  In the book, The Political Economy of Theocracy, by Mario Ferrerro and Ronald Wintrobe, we are told that: “From 1609 to 1767 the Jesuits governed a ‘socialist theocracy’ in Paraguay.” Meanwhile, in a 19th century book called The Seventh Vial, or the Past and Present of Papal Europe, Protestant historian, J.A. Wylie wrote the following: “If ever heaven in his wrath sent an incarnation of malignity from the place of all evil, to chastise the guilty race of man, it is Communism.  But the hell from which it is come is Rome: Communism has drawn its birth from the fetid womb of Popery, whose superstition has passed into atheism, and whose tyranny has engendered lawlessness …” (Wylie, pp. 256-257) Wylie also wrote of how the Jesuits used Communism as a tool of manipulation against countries they are trying to