My position on the manuscript is that…
We should be seeking less to ‘break’ the text, or ‘solve’ the manuscript than to understand it. The manuscript isn’t the problem; the problem is that some basic flaws in the manuscript’s past study leave us still – after more than a century – unable to rightly interpret the evidence embodied in the manuscript’s form, materials, script and content. I’d suggest a prospective revisionist always keep two questions to the fore when reading what has been, or is being said of the manuscript’s content: ‘Where’s the evidence for that idea?’ and ‘Is that inference valid?’.
The aim of this blog is to inspect the premises, assumptions and evidence (if any) which led to the formation of ideas now repeated everywhere.
Links to the posts, with their initial readings for each topic are in the ‘Cumulative Bibliography’ page in the top bar.