I had hesitated to explain why I’ve removed from public view so many posts among those I’ve provided here, since their aim was to give people working on the manuscript the bare bones of my investigation as it progressed – in addition to opinions based in earlier formal studies and experience.
For longer-term, and/or better informed readers, I expect that to quote the following will be sufficient:
1. a recent comment made by Rene Zandbergen:
“progress has mostly been achieved by significant personal efforts that produced something that was clearly recognised as something useful.”
2. from publisher’s blurb sent to me – and claiming to contain
.. a new theory … Based on careful study of the images depicted, the plants portrayed, and the lack of any Christian imagery, the authors conclude that it was a Jewish person residing in Italy who must have written the manuscript.
[matter by] Dr Stephen Skinner, Dr Rafal Prinke, and Dr René Zandbergen.’
Anyone of moderate intelligence can recognise “something useful”, but the mere act of having been able to recognise something as ‘useful’ does not entitle anyone to pretend it a new idea and the result of their own work, nor to represent to others as ‘an idea’ what the speaker knows is the hard-won conclusions in someone else’s work.
A great many of my readers surely know that; the question is – does Zandbergen?
Postscript – in some parts of the world it is possible to see a larger or smaller part of the essays at the Amazon site. This is not the Yale University sponsored facsimile, but one by Watkins Media Limited. We note that the publication had been advertised to appear in August rather than in mid-June.