In reality, not mentioning Farrer didn't mean anything at all.
He mentioned multiple sources post-Farrer, and Farrer was irrelevant.
You wouldn't even know of Farrer but for Chris Pinto, and he wouldn't know of Farrer save for the Internet that Elliott didn't exactly
have in England in 1982, when the work was published……
Mentioning Farrer - whose book by the way is about FORGERS - is irrelevant
Yes, it is about forgeries, like passing off Sinaiticus as ancient.
The Farrer book was available to Elliott, including through the reference in Metzger’s autobiography, as he acknowledged, but he missed it.
James Keith Elliott points out that David Parker writing on Sinaiticus and Bart Ehrman in his book on forgeries both missed the Farrer book, too! (Again, severely limiting their analysis.) If Elliott had included Fanrrer, then Parker would not have missed it, since he used Elliott’s book.
Afaik, Chris Pinto does get the excellent credit for bringing the information forth, then the David Daniel’s books on Sinaiticus includes commentary and a pic of the 6405, 6406, 6407 entries from the Spyridon Lambrou Athos catalogue.
All extremely relevant.
J. K. Elliott's success in his book, was in showing the real world time-line. Where did Elliott show a real-world time-line? What did he show for the timeline of the Sinaiticus manuscript before 1844?
forums.carm.org
