There are a number of elements to the anomalies involving the Barnabas and Hermas epistles in Sinaiticus. There was a request to go into it more in the white parchment thread, thus we begin."The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance"
Literary forgeries (1907) - James Anson Farrer
(1) One element is understood historically, and is encapsulated by the James Austin Farrer (1849-1925) comment. Farrer gave us a fascinating review of the Simonides controversies. This includes the accusation of Tischendorf against the Hermas of Simonides (Codex Lipsiensis), followed by his retraction. His objections were awkward for the Sinaiticus Hermas, and were declared inoperative.
(2) A second element is a linguistic analysis given by the skilled classical Scottish scholar, James Donaldson (1831-1915). An analysis in the 1860s and 1870s that actually turns around the Tischendorf argumentation against the Shepherd of Hermas of Simonides, that it involved a "medieval retranslation". Donaldson turns these Tischendorf (1857, retracted 1863) arguments squarely against the Shepherd of Hermas of Sinaiticus. In fact, Donaldson uses that line of argumentation to cast great doubt on both Hermas and Barnabas as being texts from the early centuries. Afaik, there never was a response on the linguistic elements given by Donaldson.
By that time the Sinaiticus 4th-century juggernaut had gained momentum. The dynamic was as noted as the David Trobisch position, given by Stephan Huller: ".... many people with a vested interest in promoting the work gave it the earliest date possible which is the early fourth century."
(3) A third element includes researching some additional historic components. This is new research that I may include, or perhaps I will simply hint at the incredible situation. (It is not my discovery, and it is not yet public knowledge, and could use some additional input from gentlemen familiar with these texts in the classical languages.) When we are done with (2) I'll see what we can do with (3). I will say that it involves a 140-year handwave and is rather powerful evidence against the authenticity of the Sinaiticus ms as a 4th-century antiquity text, and that it is a modern production.
In 1856, Simonides had published a Greek Hermas. For the timeline, let's go to the 1891 summary and just highlight the aspects involving the Greek text:
Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume 4 (1891)
John McClintock, James Strong
https://bible.prayerrequest.com/7914-mc ... dia/26690/
For additional background on the Mt. Athos Hermas leaves, see:Of the Greek original we have nothing left but fragments ... The Greek text was at an early period translated into Latin, and, since the beginning of the 15th century, often published .... Of late years this tract has been the subject of more editing and literary criticism than almost any relic of the early Church. In 1857 Dressel published .... a Greek text of the Ποιμὴν , revised by Tischendorf. This text, it is claimed, was found in a, convent of Mount Athos by Simonides. Tischendorf considers it, however, only as a retranslation from the Latin into Greek, and places its origin in the Middle Ages. Tischendorf himself discovered, in the Codex. Sinaiticus, the Greek text of book 1 of the Shepherd, and the first four chapters of book 2...
A collation of the Athos codex of the Shepherd of Hermas (1888)
Spyridōn Paulou Lambros, translated by Joseph Armitage Robinson
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=m ... =1up;seq=7
Note that Lambros is referenced in the Farrer book. His Catalog of the Greek manuscripts on Mt. Athos, Vol 1 1895, Vol 2, 1900, p. 454, maybe p. 161, was an important confirmation of elements of the Simonides and Kallinikos history.
For our (1) the key points are:
a) Simonides published the first Greek Hermas, before the Greek Hermas was "discovered" by Tischendorf in 1859
(this Simonides Lipsiensis Greek published edition may have been a hybrid text, some original Greek, some from Latin)
b) Tischendorf attacked the Simonides Greek, as being a "medieval retranslation"
c) Tischendorf retracted his accusations against the Simonides Greek Codex Athos-Lipsiensis
History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 100-325.(1891, 3rd ed)
Shepherd of Hermas (1870)… Dressel's Patres Apost. in the second ed. 1863, where Tischendorf, in consequence of the intervening discovery of the Cod. Sinaiticus retracted his former objections to the originality of the Greek Hermas from Mt. Athos, which he had pronounced a mediaeval retranslation from the Latin (see the Proleg., Appendix and Preface to the second ed.)
Charles Holland Hoole
===============================Hermas .. The Greek original disappeared, and it was long known only in a Latin version. But a few years ago a Greek version of the greater part of Hennas was discovered by Simonides in Mount Athos. This is now called the Codex Lipsiensis. The character of the discoverer caused it at first to be regarded with suspicion, and it was asserted by Tischendorf that it was in reality not the Greek
original, but a translation from the Latin version into Greek, executed in the middle ages. The recently discovered Codex Sinaiticus, however, was found to contain a considerable portion of a Greek version of Hermas substantially the same as that of the Codex Lipsiensis .... Tischendorf has retracted his objections to the Greek text of the Codex Lipsiensis since the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus; Hilgenfeld and Canon Westcott accept the Greek as genuine. But it is attacked at length by Mr. Donaldson in his History of Christian Literature and Doctrine, vol. i. p. 309.
Thus it would be interesting for someone skilled in German to extract the sections of attack and retraction.
Tischendorf Accusation Edition
Patrum Apostolicorum Opera
"De Herma Graeco Lipsiensi"
Tischendorf on Simonides p xliv-lv - Tischendorf edition 408-637
Literary Churchman review of above
"the great novelty of the volume is the Greek text of Hermas (continues)"
Tishcendorf Retraction Edition
Patrum apostolicorum opera by adhibitis praestantissimis editionibus, recensuit atque emenavit, notis illustravit, versione latina passim correcta, prolegomenis, indicibus Albertus Rud. Max. Dressel, aucta supplementis ad Barnabae epistolam et Hermae pastorem ex Tishendorfiana codicis sinaitici editione haustis. (1863)
https://archive.org/stream/patrumaposto ... i/mode/2up
http://books.google.com/books?id=lioVAA ... &q&f=false
Note that in this summary I am not going into the later discovery of Hermas papyri, such as the 1901 Amherst Papyri
Later I plan on giving an up-to-date reference.
Simonides publishes Hermas, 1856.
Tischendorf accuses this of being a "medieval retranslation", 1857,
Tischendorf publishes Hermas from Sinaiticus with many similar features. 1862
Tischendorf retracts his accusations against the Simonides Hermas, 1863
Starting around 1861, Simonides was claiming publicly that his hand was involved in producing the Sinaiticus manuscript."The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance"
James Anson Farrer, Literary forgeries (1907), p. 60
Note: A curious Metzger-Ehrman blunder has distorted some of the modern scholarship:
The Text of the New Testament - 4th edition (2005)
By B.M. Metzger, B.D. Ehrman
==============================="Codex Sinaiticus .. Tischendorf.. the addition of two early Christian works of ihe second century, the Epistle of Barnabas (previously known only* through a very poor Latin translation) and a large portion of the Shepherd of Hermas, hitherto known only by title."
Ok, I think that takes care of #1 above, at least an overview.