Steven Avery
Administrator
This is touched on in many places, Kevin McGrane gives some value added p. 33-34
Yet Dr Cooper shows images of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus pages side by side (pp.60-1)
with the remark 'It is very plain indeed that the same scribe wrote out both
pages.. .and we can see it here with our own eyes.' Unfortunately, Dr Cooper's
eyesight and/or judgment cannot be trusted here. Were the reader to compare the
documents,60 he would find that all palaeographers who have had access to
photographic images since Kirsopp Lake (who showed enlarged images of both
codices for comparison in 1911) are fully justified in their assessment, and
accordingly Tischendorf was mistaken. It is not a little interesting, therefore, that Dr
Cooper promotes the 'indefensible' and 'universally discredited' opinion of
Tischendorf and other nineteenth century palaeographers (whom he elsewhere
disparages) for which there remains 'no trace of justification'.61
60 The reader would need a magnifying glass to view the characters in Dr Cooper’s book. Presumably,
therefore, Dr Cooper expects his readers to take his word for it.
61 Although he has not seen it reported elsewhere, the present reviewer considers that the dearest
indicator of different scribes is on the formation of the letter M. Scribe D in Sinaiticus forms this letter
with four strokes (the motion of the pen stops three times, though not lifted). The Vaticanus scribe
forms the letter with three strokes (the motion of the pen stops twice), so that there is a radius at the
centre, there being a change of direction while the pen is in motion. This is elementary graphology.
There are many other clear differences, such that Tischendorf was gravely mistaken and misled a
whole generation of scholars who relied on him. We encourage readers of Cooper's book to take their
magnifying glasses and compare the formation of the letter M in both codices. They will see that it is
very plain that they are not the work of the same scribe.
A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex
A critical review of Dr W.R. Cooper’s thesis in his book ‘The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus‘. The review demonstrates that Dr Cooper’s thesis that Codex Sinaiticus was produced in the nineteenth century is a classic conspiracy theory, and without
www.academia.edu
with the remark 'It is very plain indeed that the same scribe wrote out both
pages.. .and we can see it here with our own eyes.' Unfortunately, Dr Cooper's
eyesight and/or judgment cannot be trusted here. Were the reader to compare the
documents,60 he would find that all palaeographers who have had access to
photographic images since Kirsopp Lake (who showed enlarged images of both
codices for comparison in 1911) are fully justified in their assessment, and
accordingly Tischendorf was mistaken. It is not a little interesting, therefore, that Dr
Cooper promotes the 'indefensible' and 'universally discredited' opinion of
Tischendorf and other nineteenth century palaeographers (whom he elsewhere
disparages) for which there remains 'no trace of justification'.61
60 The reader would need a magnifying glass to view the characters in Dr Cooper’s book. Presumably,
therefore, Dr Cooper expects his readers to take his word for it.
61 Although he has not seen it reported elsewhere, the present reviewer considers that the dearest
indicator of different scribes is on the formation of the letter M. Scribe D in Sinaiticus forms this letter
with four strokes (the motion of the pen stops three times, though not lifted). The Vaticanus scribe
forms the letter with three strokes (the motion of the pen stops twice), so that there is a radius at the
centre, there being a change of direction while the pen is in motion. This is elementary graphology.
There are many other clear differences, such that Tischendorf was gravely mistaken and misled a
whole generation of scholars who relied on him. We encourage readers of Cooper's book to take their
magnifying glasses and compare the formation of the letter M in both codices. They will see that it is
very plain that they are not the work of the same scribe.