Why do we think the Voynich manuscript has multiple scribes?

[Torsten]

I'm sorry, Torsten, but I'm just not going to rehash this with you again. We've been discussing this for five years now. You don't agree with me. That's fine.

Back in 2020, your response to my question about intra-scribe variation was:

Thanks for taking the time to go through my work so carefully, Torsten. I see your point, but as I mentioned when you brought this up on Twitter a few days ago, paleography is about tendencies, not about absolutes. These scribes are human, writing by hand, and even the most careful calligrapher is not going to make each character exactly the same every time. That's what the printing press is for. My conclusions are based on tendencies visible over the length of a scribe's corpora.

 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

At the time, my reply was:

Since paleography includes some subjective elements I find it especially important to understand the methodology used. In other words, also in paleography methodology matters. You wrote in your article 'Folio 57v is somewhat problematic: there is too little text to reliable run Currier's dialect tests, ...' (Davis 2020, p. 176). Now you say the 'conclusions are based on tendencies over the length of a scribe's corpora'. This sounds to me as if the corpora of a scribe was first determined by taking 'Currier's dialect tests' and the illustrations into account. Is my understanding correct?

 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I never received an answer to this question, which remains central to evaluating the foundations of your five-scribe hypothesis.