Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: notes on the Kevin McGrane paper - review of Bill Cooper

  1. Default notes on the Kevin McGrane paper - review of Bill Cooper

    This is an interesting paper. Much of it has to do with blunders in the book of William Cooper. Many good scholarship references. And at least a place or two where I reexamine my positions and understandings, with appreciation for Kevin's efforts. (Many weaknesses in the paper as well, I will try to be fair on both sides on this set of forum posts.)

    Available in a few spots:

    ... A great deal of research unearthed during this undertaking, but not directly relevant to Dr Cooper’s book and so not included here, is expected to appear in a subsequent monograph Codex Sinaiticus and the Three Constantines.
    We look forward to that monograph.

    My Facebook discussion on PureBible:


    Sinaiticus Authenticity - Kevin McGrane vs. Bill Cooper
    Many of you know that I have cordially ripped two Sinaiticus non-authenticity books, one by Bill Cooper, one by David Sorenson, as being loaded with blunders and doozies. This is mostly on and also Facebook threads. I’ve warned friends to be careful about any usage of the books, since the weak spots are open for easy broadside attack....
    Before going into wide-ranging issues, the next three posts have a very specific focus, two on integrity, one on a commonly made claim about palaeographers.

  2. Default Integrity #1 - transferance fallacy

    A crass smear. Emphasis added:

    4 A more recent book that has appeared, covering similar ground, but in a longer treatment is David W Daniels, Is the “World’s Oldest Bible” a fake? , (2018). Also J A Moorman Was Codex Sinaiticus Written in 1840! [sic] (2018). Most of the critical comments directed to Cooper’s book apply also to Daniels’.
    In terms of the book by David W. Daniels, this is complete nonsense and one of two incredible examples of a lack of integrity from Kevin. (I will note here if he corrects this error.) On virtually all of the dozen of so sections where blunders and bluster of William Cooper are analyzed, there is simply no relationship to David's book or videos at all.

    And I can not comment on what Jack Moorman has written, since I have not seen the book. I was a bit disappointed in his talk at the Dean Burgon Socieity, 2018. Note, however, that Jack is not directly included in the smear campaign.

    Kevin McGrane may be unaware that many videos from David and the research of the SART team preceded the Bill Cooper book.

  3. Default Integrity #2 - responding to arguments given by Sinaiticus authenticity defenders

    The second main spot where Kevin's book suffers from a lack of integrity. This really cheapens his book.

    For now, I will just go over one spot, in the text below:

    12 The blogosphere is freighted with conspiracy theories. Those who resort to internet sites as a source of information are destined to repeat and recycle innumerable errors. Many bloggers do not understand the points being dealt with, do not understand basic logic and how to spot and avoid fallacies, do not have the necessary ability in critical thinking, and do not understand methods of research. Moreover, there is no peer review, or even a sanity check. Many recycle statements taken out of context copied without checking their sources ad fontes, or properly understanding the tilings that they write. Among such in recent years we can mention David W. Daniels, who produced a book Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?, Chris Pinto, who produced a video Tares among the Wheat, which includes details about Codex Sinaiticus, and the many blog posts by 'Steven Avery' (= Steven Avery Spencer). These are deeply flawed and unbalanced, and to a greater or lesser extent they utilize the methods of conspiracy theory. Many of the arguments that these writers consider to be most compelling (among themselves) are based on gross misunderstandings of the evidence, and a complete failure to deal with, and in many cases even acknowledge, countervailing evidence. In so doing they are doing great disservice to the causes they claim to espouse. - p. 12
    If this was not an integrity issue, on both sides, I would laugh heartily. Here I am responding for the SART team, which includes David W. Daniels and Mark Michie.

    Again and again, we have acknowledged and responded to supposed countervailing evidences.
    A few examples.

    Stanley Porter summary of James Keith Elliott arguments.
    James Snapp - 20 reasons (every one answered).
    palaeography claims of Elijah Hixson
    colour claims of Jacob Peterson
    Tommy Wasserman on Simonides
    And much more. Either Kevin is ignorant of these discussions, or he is anxious to score cheap debating trick points by lying. (And the more virulent contras therefore rush to quote the false accusation.)

    In fact, It is hard to get authenticity defenders to have any sort of full-orbed discussion. (Will Kevin do a better job?) One common motif is censorship.

    In a sense, this immediately answers the other silly attacks where Kevin cheapens his paper with insanity, unbalanced, and more.

    As to peer review, this is a complex issue. Who did the peer review for Kevin's paper? Who even knows the main issues? There are many places where his paper is strong, and many places where it is weak, but why should people who do not know the wide-ranging topics decide on publication?

    And you can very easily create a solid review by simply sending an advanced copy to five or so individuals who are interested and strong on the issues. They might end up doing a blurb quote, or oublishing their critiques or requesting full anonymity.

    As for ad fontes, Kevin must be kidding. We had the Uspensky material translated from Russian/Old Slavonian. David has researched Vassarion in Athos. We have pulled out primary source material everywhere, from English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Russian/Slavonian and Latin sources. We have corresponded with scholars on a wide variety of issues.

    As for "conspiracy theory", this is a common canard. Sometimes you have to consider the possibility or likelihood of conspiracy, such as with the JFK assassination. With Sinaiticus, the theory of replica or forgery production has to consider cui bono, who benefits, and any study and conjecture in that realm will be attacked by vapid and scholastically insecure individuals, not aware of the evidences, as "conspiracy theory".

    Yes, we can criticize Bill Cooper for how he plays loose and fancy-free with looking for a Jesuit conspiracy. Plus how he states conjectures, often weak, as supposed obvious facts. However, that applies only to Bill Cooper.


    Integrity Footnote:

    Kevin made two crass, false smear attempts against the SART team, and our studies.

    They have been mentioned on the Facebook PureBible forum and here.

    Kevin should at the very least retract the false accusations, although he could do better and also let his earlier readers know.

    If not, these two spots are available as the response, rebuttal and refutation.
    Simply link to these two posts.

    Integrity #1 - transferance fallacy


  4. Default the appeal to the phantom independent palaeographers who studied the parchment and ink

    Moreover, no qualified palaeographer who has had opportunity physically to inspect the document has doubted that the manuscript was produced centuries before the nineteenth. - p. 8

    9 Simonides likewise cast himself into the same camp by stating that 'Any person learned in palaeography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a MS of the present age.' Since many learned palaeographers have come and gone since that statement was made in the 1860s, and none have agreed with Simonides, then the implication is that all palaeographers without exception have been involved in an ongoing conspiracy. - p. 8
    What is missing here is the names, dates and text of the reports of these palaeographers. Preferably independent, since palaeographers working for a library are not looking to publicize markers of inauthenticity. And preferably these esteemed, independent palaeographers should have personally examined and handled at least both main sections (1844 Leipzig and 1859 British Library, earlier St. Petersburg) and reported on issues like the parchment and ink conditions, the various scripts etc.

    Tischendorf, we know, set script dates without giving any explanation whatsoever, as pointed out by Skeat. Similarly he used the old misdirection trick of pointing scholars to his facsimile edition, which of course hides the “phenomenally good condition” of the parchment and ink. As well as hiding the 1844 to 1859 differences. In addition, there have been no scientific tests, and those planned for Leipzig in 2015 were cancelled.

    This is so fundamental that I am making the first point of inquiry to Kevin McGrane, after the two integrity lapses above.

    Names, dates, and analysis, please. Or the statements should be simply retracted, removed form the paper, and, better, the lack of real palaeography analysis should be discussed.


  5. Default why would a 600 AD Sinaiticus be linked to a "fourth century component"?

    The theory of Kevin McGrane tends to a later Sinaiticus than the one accepted today as 4th century.

    There is a curious point on this, however. I am using the classical ad hominem approach, allowing his arguments, "to the man":

    If Donaldson is correct on these points, then as the Palatine Latin translation is fifth Century and the Greek may be post-fifth Century then a sixth Century production of Codex Sinaiticus is consistent with these findings. This aligns with Uspensky's mature view that the Codex is a sixth Century copy of a fourth Century exemplar of the New Testament. Added to this, then, were Contemporary (sixth Century) recensions of Hermas and Barnabas with Latin influences from the fifth Century. None of this points to a nineteenth Century production.

    ... However, the alternative of a fourth Century production of Codex Sinaiticus does not follow from rejection of Dr Cooper's thesis. Important scholars have considered that it is a production of the fifth or sixth Century of a fourth Century exemplar. But whether it is a sixth Century copy of a fourth Century edition or an edition made in the fourth Century, there is an important fourth Century component, in a time when the Church was fighting for its life during the Arian controversies, from which there is ample testimony of the corruption of the Scriptures by the Arians.
    Lets say that Sinaiticus was made in 600 AD (e.g. David Trobisch has floated that idea.) It would be a relatively unimportant uncial, and that would mean that the textual world was even that much more duped by Hort.

    However, why all the blah-blah to the supposed "fourth Century component"? Codex Bezae could be said to have a "second century component" in Old Latin sources, but that is simply conjecture and has very little to do with its textual value.

    If Sinaiticus was made at 600 AD., it could easily have lots of variants and corruptions that come from .. 600 AD. The supposed "fourth century component" would be nothing but conjectural manipulations, of very little value.

    The preface reference:

    The suggestion that Codex Sinaiticus is a nineteenth century forgery by Jesuits, and the attempts to prove such by means of conspiracy theories, are huge distractions from consideration of its real provenance, which reveals a heavy influence from heterodox elements in the early church, certainly in the fourth century, and possibly in the fifth and sixth centuries as well.

  6. Default flippant dismissal conclusions

    Frequently Kevin gives a type of "nothing here" flippant dismissal of important items.
    I will put a number of those here on this post:

    Hermas recension

    Of course, the fact that the Greek texts of The Shepherd of Hermas in Codex Sinaiticus and in the Athos Codex are similar means nothing more than that they are copies of the same Greek recension. Any other alleged association is accidental or conjectural.
    Kallinikos and Sypridon Lamprou catalog
    As I come across these on the rereading, I will put more in here, and plan to add what is missing.

  7. Default the imaginary Benedict


    Kevin refers to the “imaginary” Benedict, and then explains he is, what was his position, etc. The “imaginary” is quite puzzling.

    Beyond that he makes a very major issue, on many pages, that he was not the Abbot at the monastery. Fair enough, but exceedingly minor, if Simonides embellished his position in his description. Kevin did not interact with the studies od David W. Daniels, which are fascinating and comprehensive in describing the gentleman, including his Bible text views.

  8. Default effectively countering factual errors, poor logic and faux conclusions from Bill Cooper


    Much excellent stuff here. Some of which I pointed out a while back. (Also from Sorenson, e.g. Vaticanus dropcaps.)

    Short pointers will be placed here. More is not needed, as the ones here apply only to Cooper, people following his work, and not to the SART team.


    “Dr.” Cooper

    My first note is that I would not use the phrase "Dr. Cooper" unless there really is good evidence a rigorous degree from a University, rather than an honorary or very light study that led to the granting of the degree.


  9. Default even more Cooper and Sorenson errors not given by Kevin McGrane

    This will be the sister post to the one above.

    from memory wip

    Cooper messed up:

    the Hendrickson/BL comparison to the CSP.

    the proposed colour adjustment history

    (Why not mentioned by Kevin?)

  10. Default interesting historical tidbits - Burgon, Nolan and Erasmus


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts