Steven Avery
Well-known member
Unlike you, who parrots Daniels, I don't parrot anyone. Simonides made it clear that book binding wasn't his occupation. In relying only on the monastery book binders, it is obvious that Simonides was using the quire structure of the existing book. Your're well and truly outclassed by Bradshaw.
You are stuck in the same error, from a different angle.
Now you realize that the scribes would not write inside a bound book.
Very good. You made some headway.
Now you say they would not modify any 8-leaf qurires, many already modified by discards, because of relying on the monastery book binders, their friends right by them who they saw every day, for the actual sewing and quire adjustments.
Your claim make no sense at all. If they needed a smaller quire to finish Barnabas, knowing Hermas was a separate production, they simply worked together to do it as a 2-leaf quire. They did not have to send it to London or Odessa to make the adjustment.
You are down-classed by trying to rescue the Bradshaw error.
When David W. Daniels knows a topic well, from personal experience and extra study, I am very happy to utilize his expertise.
Additional examples:
Notice how David Daniels published the Benedict/Bissarion history before the recent excellent Greek historian.
Notice how David Daniels described the five intact quires of the 1843 heist before … any Sinaiticus writer in the world!
Find one Sinaiticus writer, before David W. Daniels, that even informs their readers that 40 of the 43 leaves stolen in 1844 were from five full, intact quires.
Tischendorf? Scrivener? Gregory? Lake? Milne-Skeat? British Museum? Leipzig University Library? Jongkind? Parker?
Anybody?
Fundamental data.
Or Bradshaw. Or Tregelles. Or Swete. Or Kenyon. Or Amy Myshrall. Or Dan Batovici. or Ken Penner. Or Kevin McGrane (who at least was very suspicious of the Tisch cover story fabrication.) Or many others.
You prefer ignorance on many topics where David has the superb craftsmanship.
Last edited: