The savvy scholars often work in the background.
Well, if I was proposing the theories of the SART team, I'd hide my face, too.
And they do not get confused by deeply entrenched scholarship.
What makes this comment comically absurd is this statement of yours:
Here are the names of two German books by Tischendorf never translated,
Wait. You just grabbed a trumpet and said, "NOBODY ON THE SART TEAM CAN READ GERMAN!!!"
Which means they're not savvy scholars in any way.
Scholars in religious studies have to master four languages: Greek, Hebrew (if OT), German, and French. The reason these books haven't been translated is because they don't have to be - and it's amusing to watch you BLAME THE BOOK or OTHER PEOPLE for the simple fact you cannot read those books because you can't read German. I mean, the gaslighting never stops with you, does it?
Rather than say, "I can't read German," you blame the book or some invisible someone who you think had some sort of obligation to you to translate it.
What is YOUR obligation, Mr. I Don't Know German?
Tischendorf could read German, which means you don't know as much as he did.
I think one has a Simonides section.
Why couldn't you just not even say this?
Why the need to bring up something you can't read and don't know what's in it?
Is this normal behavior anywhere else?
Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel (1863)
I'm curious as to what you think this one said.
I'm guessing you used Google Translate and can't really do that, either.
There's nothing wrong with that title at all.
You just don't know German.
Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel (1863)
But this came to nothing. The Tischendorf apologetic (attack) books Anfechtungen and Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel are truly an embarrassment, and are never properly considered in the historical accounts.[
Since by your own admission YOU CANNOT READ THESE (why else would you whine about it not being translated), YOU HAVE NO IDEA whether these books are embarrassments, do you?
Didn't stop you from saying that.
Again - this is your level of research writ large. It's called confirmation bias.
These two books help give you a sense of how wacky and unbalanced was Tischendorf, starting with the titles.
Person who can't read and mistakenly thinks his Google translate was accurate bases opinion on wrong methodology and animus against Tischendorf.
Written by a top textual scholar, with request to remain unnamed.
Yes, we can all play the Joe McCarthy game. "I have in my hands here the names of 257 Commies in the government - I just can't show them to you!"
It means nothing.
And you can see the irrationality in many of the arguments here.
I sure can. I can see that you will call the slightest variation from Tischendorf a "lie" but Simonides gets a free pass and defense from you. I can see that you think YOU ALONE can date Sinaiticus having never seen it but demand others HAVE TO PROVE IT!! I can see that you demand testing and even if it comes up against you, you'll just say "Simonides himself said he was an expert with inks and the parchment was old."
The only irrational arguments being presented here are by you.
However, I am rather confident that it will fall nonetheless.
Easy to do when you've already decided you're not going to accept the results anyway.
I'm just here for the comments.
The only thing I've learned is the depths of human depravity and the willingness to believe a lying forger all because you don't like certain English Bibles.
