Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomalies

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomalies

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:07 pm

Hi,
"The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance"

Literary forgeries (1907) - James Anson Farrer
http://books.google.com/books?id=4lgLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA60
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.

====================

(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)
Hermas
John McClintock, James Strong
http://books.google.com/books?id=8INPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA204
https://bible.prayerrequest.com/7914-mc ... dia/26690/
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...
For additional background on the Mt. Athos Hermas leaves, see:

A collation of the Athos codex of the Shepherd of Hermas (1888)
Spyridōn Paulou Lambros, translated by Joseph Armitage Robinson
https://archive.org/details/collationofatho00lamp
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)
Philip Schaff
http://books.google.com/books?id=WTA2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA678
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.x.html

Hermas
… 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.)
Shepherd of Hermas (1870)
Charles Holland Hoole
http://books.google.com/books?id=xfQ2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PR17
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"
http://books.google.com/books?id=ggib8P8vzXIC&pg=PR44
Tischendorf on Simonides p xliv-lv - Tischendorf edition 408-637

Literary Churchman review of above
http://books.google.com/books?id=gc4FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA81
"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
http://books.google.com/books?id=3FUPAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA195
Later I plan on giving an up-to-date reference.

===============================

Hermas Summary

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

"The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance"
James Anson Farrer, Literary forgeries (1907), p. 60
Starting around 1861, Simonides was claiming publicly that his hand was involved in producing the Sinaiticus manuscript.

===============================

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
http://books.google.com/books?id=lA4WAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA63
"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.

Steven Avery
Bayside, NY
Last edited by Steven Avery on Sun Nov 02, 2014 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

junego
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:58 pm

Re: Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomal

Post by junego » Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:28 am

More, please? This is fascinating info. Thank you for posting it.

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomal

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:09 am

Thanks.

I'll try to do a full #2 presentation this weekend. And I actually have that material pretty much ready.

(Note: I have a couple of quotes and info to add to #1, I'll get back there, nothing that changes the basic format)

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomal

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Oct 31, 2014 4:29 pm

===========================================================
James Donaldson, 1864, on the Tischendorf accusations and retraction
===========================================================

Above, we saw above that the Tischendorf retraction was 1863, since he was now publishing Sinaiticus with Hermas. James Donaldson was one of the top scholars on the ECW and church history and he thought that there was something fishy about the Tischendorf turnabout. Scholarship was being sacrificed to Sinaiticus expediency.

James Donaldson (1831-1915)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Don ... scholar%29
Sir James Donaldson (26 April 1831, Aberdeen – 1915), was a Scottish classical scholar, and educational and theological writer.

Remember, in the #1 section, Charles Holland Hoole told us about the James Donaldson concerns about the tricky positioning by Tischendorf, so let's read from the 1864 book from Donaldson that he mentioned.

============================

A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine: The apostolical fathers (1864)
James Donaldson
http://books.google.com/books?id=tMlDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA307
In 1856 appeared the first edition of a Greek text of the Pastor of Hermas, under the care of Anger and Dindorf. The manuscript from which it was taken was three leaves of a codex lately found in Mount Athos by Simonides, and a copy of all the rest except a small portion. In a short time, however, considerable doubts were thrown on the genuineness of this text, through a revelation of Simonides's forging practices made by a companion (footnote on Alexander Lycurgus/Lykourgus, referencing his book on Uranios https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_FU9ObWZ7_1MC ). Tischendorf's suspicions had also been aroused. On examining the manuscript, however, he believed it to be a genuine manuscript, and gave a new recension of it in Dressel's Apostolical Fathers. He also wrote a dissertation, showing that the Greek, though not forged, must have been a re-translation from the Latin. His arguments seemed to himself to be most convincing, and he remarks at the conclusion of his essay :

"Non deerunt quidem qui etiam tot argumentorum conjunctorum vim subterfugiant: nimirum sunt qui probabilitatis certique sensum aut natura non hubent aut studiis amiserunt, quique verum tanquam adversarium malunt convincere qtiam intesrro animo invenire."

"There will no doubt be individuals who will be able to elude the force of even so many arguments joined together, to wit, those who have naturally no perception of what can be proved and is certain, or who have lost this perception by their party feelings, and who prefer refuting the truth as if it were an adversary to finding it out with unbiassed mind."
============================

Let's stop for a minute.

Donaldson is quoting and translating from the Tischendorf section where we referenced the 14th century conclusion above on p. lv. The section quoted here is from the bottom paragraph of p. liv.

Patrum apostolicorum opera (1857)
Di Herma Graeco Lipsiensi
http://books.google.com/books?id=ggib8P8vzXIC&pg=PR54

Donaldson is emphasizing the sureness of Tischendorf in 1857. This text of Simonides could not possible be early Greek.

============================

James Donaldson - Tischendorf retraction is not evidence-based

Let's continue with Donaldson, 1864.
To the Sinaitic Bible which Tischendorf found is attached a portion of the Pastor of Hermas in Greek. The text of this portion is substantially the same as that given in the Athos manuscript. The variations are comparatively slight. And almost all the arguments that were adduced against the Athos manuscript are adducible against the Sinaitic. Tischendorf's opinion,however,changed on his finding the agreement between the two texts.
Steven
This is a key "something's fishy in Denmark" moment. Donaldson is saying .. hey, Tischendorf's arguments were strong, the Hermas ms. is late, the same arguments are applicable to the Sinaiticus Hermas. Tischendorf did a quick turnabout for one reason, and one reason only .. he was claiming Sinaiticus 4th century antiquity. This was not linguistic science, this was self-serving greed, desire for honors, from Tischendorf.
In his Notitia, p. 45, he (SA-Tischendorf) wrote:
"I am glad to be able to communicate that the Leipzig text is derived not from middle-age studies but from the old original text.. My opposite opinion is proved correct in so far as that the Leipzig text is disfigured by many corruptions, such as without doubt proceed from middle-age use of Latin."

And he repeats his belief that the Leipzig text (SA->the text of Simonides) is genuine in the Prolegomena to the Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum. The discovery of this manuscript does not however impair the force of the arguments which he employed ; and as they are in the main applicable to the Sinaitic codex, they compel us to reject the Greek text of Hermas given there as spurious.
Steven
Strong and clear words. Tischendorf demonstrated that the Hermas of Simonides was not a 4th century Greek ms. The same proof applies to the Codex Sinaiticus Hermas. It is spurious, ie. it is not a 4th century document.

SA
We have the Prolegomena from 1863 in the text above.

There was, apparently, an earlier than 1863 mini-retraction ("my opposite opinion") which we see referenced by the church review in 1861.

===========

Church Review (1861)
The Sinaitic Codex of the Bible
http://books.google.com/books?id=o-_NAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA718...
reference to Tischendorf earlier retraction:
"We conclude this portion of our inquiry with a reference to the light, thrown by the Sinaitic Hermas upon the Greek text of Simonides, which Dr. Tischendorf now admits to have been a copy from the original, modified by a Latin version, and not a mediaeval Greek retranslation of the Latin, as he supposed. This is important, because it relieves poor Simonides of one of the many sins laid to his charge."
===========

Looking for the earlier mini-retraction, we find:

Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici (1860)
Constantine Tischendorf
http://books.google.com/books?id=4Ac4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA45

Here we have it, in a small footnote over two pages. I'll take a pic and bring it to this post.

Image
Last edited by Steven Avery on Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:55 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomal

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:31 pm

============================
James Donaldson 1864 continues
============================

Now we go to some of the specific Donaldson analysis.

* Hermas Greek is of late origin. *

"The arguments may be divided into two classes; those which indicate that the Greek is of late origin, and those which tend to prove that the Greek text is derived from some Latin translation."

Image

summary on late origin Greek
"Most, if not all, of these peculiarities now mentioned, may be found in Hellenistic writings, especially the New Testament; and some of them may be paralleled even in classical writers. But if we consider that the portion which has now been examined is small, and that every page is filled with these peculiarities, the only conclusion to which we can come is, that the Greek is not the Greek of the at least first five centuries of the Christian era. There is no document written within that period which has half so many neo-Hellenic forms, taken page by page, as this Greek of the Pastor of Hermas."
=================

Latin origin - 3 types
.
"The peculiarities which point out a Latin origin are the following:— (first part of pic below) ....
Then there is a considerable number of passages preserved to us in Greek by Origen and other writers. The Sinaitic Greek differs often from this Greek, and agrees with the Latin translation, especially the Palatine. There is every, especially internal, probability that the Greek of the ancient writers is nearer the original than the Sinaitic. "

Image

The three types of Latin evidences can be seen in the pic above.
"All these examples have been taken from the Sinaitic Greek. But the arguments become tenfold stronger if the Sinaitic Greek is to stand or fall with the Athos Greek. And this must be, for they are substantially the same. No doubt some allowance must be made for the carelessness of transcribers, but after every allowance is made, there is enough to convict both texts of a late origin, and to make it extremely probable that both are translations from the Latin".
So we have one of the very top church writer scholars of the day stating clearly that Sinaiticus Hermas really can not be a 4th-century antiquity ms. This is without any concern or input in regard to the Simonides authorship assertions, simply based on linguistic analysis. As with most scholars, Donaldson is a bit conservative in conclusion:
"convict both texts (Hermas of Simonides Lipsiensis and Sinaiticus) of a late origin... extremely probable that both are translations from the Latin".
Note that whether an 800 AD scribe, or a 14th century translator (Tischendorf) or Simonides and friends in the 19th century are the source, the whole Sinaiticus ms falls forward to the same late date of Latin-Greek translation.

Above I am bringing the first part of the Donaldson arguments forward. They may be probative toward non-authenticity, or there may be some sort of scholarship counters. Considering his superb skill level, they most be considered as significant to the max.

=======================

There is a footnote that Donaldson put with the above, ending his 1864 Hermas section.

a The reasons for the genuineness of the Simonidean text and refutations of the objections, are given in Anger's Preface, and in Nachträgliche Bemerkungen zu Hennas von Rudolph Anger und Wilhelm Dindorf: Three Parts: Leipzig 1856-58.

This is rather unclear as to how it fits the above. The date is earlier than the curent analysis. Likely he is talking about arguments that the text is not simply a Simonides forgery.

=======================
Last edited by Steven Avery on Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomal

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:50 pm

====================
James Donaldson, 1874
====================

First Donaldson gave a little review:

The Apostolical Fathers (1874)
The Pastor of Hermas
James Donaldson
http://books.google.com/books?id=_LwOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA382
https://archive.org/stream/apostolicalfath01donagoog...

The section starts on p. 382 and on p. 383-384 we have the Tischendorf review, including the Latin quote above where he was sure that the Simonides text was not an authentic early Greek ms., but a translation from the Latin.
"There will no doubt be individuals who will be able to elude the force of even so many arguments joined together, to wit, those who have naturally no perception of what can be proved and is certain, or who have lost this perception by their party-feelings, and who prefer refuting the truth as if it were an adversary to finding it out with unbiassed mind." - Tischendorf contra the Simonides text
"The aspect of the question was greatly changed by the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript. The history of this manuscript borders on the miraculous. ... " (Donaldson, p. 384)

"In 1859 ... the complete Greek .. as much of the Greek of the Pastor of Hermas as had been given in the Simonides manuscripts. (p. 386)"
Note: the Gennadius Library material #3 may include this 1859 Hermas. See also #9 for additional Hermas material.
Next we get a type of Scottish, or Brit-style, sardonic note.
"There are many circumstances in this narrative calculated to awaken suspicion, and there are other circumstances of an equally suspicious nature which I have not mentioned. But those who are most competent to judge, have allowed that it seems a genuine ancient manuscript." p. 387
Thus you have an ironic nod to the scholarship consensus, "those who are most competent to judge" :).
Donaldson continues:
"Tischendorf assigns this manuscript to the fourth century: but the data on which dates are assigned to uncials are exceedingly unsatisfactory and entirely negative. The utmost that can be based on the data in this case is that it may have been written in the fourth century. There is therefore ample room for discussing the age and value of the manuscript from internal evidence, that is, from the inflections and grammatical peculiarities that appear in the manuscript and from the state of the language as indicated by the errors of the transcriber or transcribers. Now we find that the text of the Pastor of Hermas found in the Sinaitic codex is substantially the same as that given in the Athos manuscript. The variations are comparatively slight. And almost all the arguments that were adduced against the Athos manuscript are adducible against the Sinaitic. " p. 387-388
This is similar to 1864, and brings us back to the 1864 analysis. Donaldson discusses how the Tischendorf view flipped, the "opposite opinion". The wording and examples are very similar although here Donaldson uses the phrase: "the purity of the Greek text of Hermas".
"The discovery of this (Sinaiticus) manuscript does not however impair the force of the arguments which he employed; and as they are in the main applicable to the Sinaitic codex, they compel us to doubt the purity of the Greek text of Hermas given there." p. 388, also in the 1864 analysis
Donaldson does on p. 391 add a scholarship reference from after the earlier edition, from between 1864 to 1874, the Hilgenfeld Latin edition of Leipzig 1873.

Next, Donaldson 1877.
Last edited by Steven Avery on Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomalies

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:07 pm

**************************************************************************************************************************
Responses to James Donaldson on Sinaiticus Hermas - Westcott, Saturday Review, German Scholarship
**************************************************************************************************************************
Brooke Foss Westcott, 1866

Now let us show two of the English responses in this era to the Donaldson Sinaiticus analysis and dating concerns. Remember, Donaldson was bucking a major wave of sympathy for the early Sinaiticus dating of Tischendorf. Putting aside the Simonides controversy, this was close to a consensus, although Hilgenfeld, especially, had pointed out problems with the 4th century date, instead opting for the 6th century.

Clearly, though, the Donaldson arguments went to the core of Sinaiticus antiquity authenticity, with or without any Simonides concerns.

A gentleman named Brooke Foss Westcott noted the Donaldson 1864 arguments and made a short comment in 1866.

=================

A general survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, during the first four centuries
Brooke Foss Westcott
http://books.google.com/books?id=NEtVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA174
I have given the Greek text of the quotations from the Shepherd. The discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus has placed the substantial authenticity of Simonides' copy beyond all reasonable doubt. Dr Donaldson's arguments (I. p. 399) prove too much, for Cod. Sinait. dates from a period within 'the first five centuries of the Christian era.'
=================

Catch the circularity? The hortian jewel.

Whatever strength there may be in the Donaldson analysis, it proves too much, because we know, presumes Westcott, that Sinaiticus simply can not be after 500 AD.

Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Volume 1
http://books.google.com/books?id=Rxc3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA250
'Greek text of the N. T. ... Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough'
Hort in 1853 to John Ellerton (1826-1893).
============================================================================================

Response to Donaldson - Saturday Review 1875

Remember in 1874 Donaldson wrote, a bit sardonically, about the "borders on the miraculous" Tischendorf story:
"There are many circumstances in this narrative calculated to awaken suspicion, and there are other circumstances of an equally suspicious nature which I have not mentioned. But those who are most competent to judge, have allowed that it seems a genuine ancient manuscript.

Tischendorf assigns this manuscript to the fourth century: but the data on which dates are assigned to uncials are exceedingly unsatisfactory and entirely negative. The utmost that can be based on the data in this case is that it may have been written in the fourth century. There is therefore ample room for discussing the age and value of the manuscript from internal evidence, that is, from the inflections and grammatical peculiarities that appear in the manuscript and from the state of the language as indicated by the errors of the transcriber or transcribers." p. 387-388
Apparently this upset some in the textual establishment, in the hotbed of hortianism. The revision was in process.

The London Saturday Review, reviewer unknown, weighed in:

The Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science and Art, Vol 39 (1875)
http://books.google.com/books?id=bNY9AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA23

Quoting the above, and leaving out the internal evidence context, they gave a long paragraph defending Tischendorf and the scholars aligned behind his dating, and using language often used by Hort, said that the dating of Sinaiticus was a:
moral certainty ...
and accusing Donaldson of :
"meddling with matters beyond the scope of his ordinary studies ... who has never paid adequate attention"
And it is a classic case of political posturing, the Saturday Review rest on the awkward juggernaut scholarship of the day:
"critical scholars have gradually learnt to uphold it (Sinaiticus) as authentic, in spite of the strange circumstances which they can perceive as clearly as does Dr. Donaldson, and for which perhaps they can account no better than he.".
Yet neither the Saturday Review or their favorite critical scholars specifically addressed the linguistic arguments that were at the core of the Donaldson presentation. e.g. the reader would not even know what were the Hermas (and Barnabas) linguistic points raised by Donaldson.

Note, they are also upset with his Congregational views influencing his church history. At one place they go into a discussion of his writing as "James Donaldson, L.L.D". "He is probably a layman". Nothing about his previous scholarly books on classical Greek and grammar.

It was rather an amazing critique, as an example of non-integrity and wild diversionary attempts.

========================================================================================

We can add here, after the Saturday Review piece, a bit about James Donaldson.

========================================================================================

James Donaldson - classical scholar

Although John Donaldson was only about 35-45 years old when he was writing these Sinaiticus concerns, we know him as one of the truly accomplished classical language scholars of that era.

In 1853, a little over 20 years old, Donaldson was the author of:

A Modern Greek Grammar for the Use of Classical Students (1853)
http://books.google.com/books?id=S4sCAAAAQAAJ

The Preface can show you his familiarity with the source literature and the topic, even when young. A year later, he wrote on the Greek poets.

Lyra Graeca: Specimens of the Greek Lyric Poets

And in 1872 Donaldson wrote a Latin Grammar.

Elementary Latin grammar
http://books.google.com/books?id=SI8CAAAAQAAJ

And Donaldson is well known for his writings on the early church, such as the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, translating and editing with Alexander Roberts and Arthur Cleveland Coxe. Also his own writings on church history and some doctrinal writings.

This sketch is simply to show that Donaldson was top-tier on these Greek and Latin issues, and also as a preparation for the next response ... Donaldson 1877

*************************************************************************************************
German Scholarship that relates to James Donaldson 1864-1874

(participation by German-fluent scholars appreciated)
*************************************************************************************************
Zahn, Harnack, Gebhardt on the Donaldson Hermas material

There was some German scholars interaction with the Donaldson Hermas material although so far it is hard to tell if his specific linguistic examples were given analysis.

James Donaldson we have as first writing on this in 1864.

Theodor Zahn in 1867 :

Hermae pastor e novo testamento illustratus (1867)
Theodor Zahn
http://books.google.com/books?id=5UlQAAAAcAAJ
https://archive.org/details/hermaepastorenov00zahn

May have some relevant material.

And his 1868 work is definitely referenced in the controversy.

Der hirt des Hermas
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001925664
http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/en ... 00002.html

We had Zahn above referenced in 1874 by Donaldson.

Next comes a Latin section:

Pastor, Graece: assita versione Latina recentiore e codice Palatino (1877)
Adolf von Harnack, Oscar von Gebhardt
http://books.google.com/books?id=g2s3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PR10

I've cleaned up the Latin OCR, so here it is for your consideration with one Donaldson quote midstream. And the p. 11 footnotes, mostly Zahn material, I am leaving in pic format.

====================

In dissertatione quam de Herma Graeco Lipsiensi Tischendorfius primao Patrum Apostolicorum editioni Dresselianae inseruit, probare conatus est, ,Graeca a Simonide feliciter illa quidern reperta neque ullo modo ab ipso ficta non tarn altero post Chr. saeculo quam aetate media orta esse, nec eum praebere textum unde vetus interpres Latinus hauserit, sed quo quis deperditum Graecum compensaverit Latina convertens'. 1 Quam coniecturam cum ipse auctor codice Sinaitico invento retractaverit, 2 praeterire ac relinquere possemus, nisi nuperrime defensor eius exstitisset Donaldsonius, vir doctissimus inque litteris Graecis versatissimus.' 3 Nisus est potissimum, ut et antea Tischendorfius, in vocabulorum usu ab omnibus quotquot noverimus illius temporis scriptoribus Graecis abhorrente, quem explicari non posse censuit, nisi tempore quodam posteriore Hermae liber ex versione Latina Graece redditus esse sumatur. Sed dubito an hodie eandem sententiam tuiturus esset vir clarissimus. Scripsit enim in censura trium Clementis Romani epistularum editionum nuper emissarum haecce:

(Donaldson)
Now the remains that we have of the Greek of the Romans prove that that Greek was not Hellenistic, and there is no reason why it should have been so. The only exception to this is the Pastor of Hermas; but the Greek of that book is still a problem. It has a great deal more of the Hellenistic and Neo-Hellenic than any work that has come down to us anterior to the works of Ptochoprodromus. 4

1. Patrum Apostol. opera. Ed. Dressel, Lips. 1856, p. XLVII.
2. Praef. ad alteram Patrum Apostol. edit. Dresselianam p. III sq.
3. The Apostolical Fathers, Lond. 1874, p. 384 sqq.
4. The Theological Review No. LVI, Iau. 1877, p. 43.

Hic certe coniecturam illam meminisse et commemorare nou omisisset, si adhuc eam amplecteretur. Et sane mirandum non est si eam descruerit, cum multis iisque gravissimis difficultatibus obstructa sit. Neque enim sufficit, de codicis Sinaitici aetate saecula aliqua detrahere; 1 fingas etiarn necesse est, si Hermam Graece scripsisse constat, tertiam quandam versionem Latinam, a vulgata quae dicitur ut et a Palatina diversam, qua interpres ille Graecus usus sit.' 2 Sin autem ipse Hermas sermonem Latinum adhibuisse coniciatur, credendum est, librum Latinum Romae scriptum nonnisi Graeco redditum innotuisse indeque rursus Latinae consuetudini traditum esse, ipsius Latini auctoris operis ne vestigio quidem relicto. Neutrum sane hominibus considerate indicantibus placebit. Quod autem ad singularem illam Hermae dictionem attinet, nonnulla inde explicantur quod homo illitteratus erat, humili loco natus; unde non mirum si in libro eius locutiones nonnullas offendimus quae sermonem plebeium redolent; 3 alia ad ipsam Hermae originem revocanda esse videntur, nisi forte potius in domo Iudaei cuiusdam adolevisse quam natione Iudaeus fuisse putandus est. 4

Image

==========================
Last edited by Steven Avery on Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:28 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomalies

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:30 pm

*************************************************************************
James Donaldson 1877, reviews five books involving Hermas
*************************************************************************
Next, in 1877 in the:

Theological Review (1877)
The Shepherd of Hermas
Review of 5 books by James Donaldson
http://books.google.com/books?id=FDY2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA504

Oscar Gebhardt and Adolph Harnack's Hermas edition from the Apostolic Fathers series, Guilielmus Heyne on the dating of Hermas, Heinrich Behm on dating and authorship and more, George H. Shodde on the Ethiopic Hermas and Walter Cassels (Supernatural Religion). The last was actually only referenced en passant.
"Gebhardt ... has estimated the value of the Sinaitic Codex too highly, and retained some readings which seem corrupt."

"Dressel discovered another Latin translation, which he called the Codex Palatinus .. Simonides ... the Greek corresponded much more nearly with the Palatine Version than with the Vulgate. Tischendorf maintained strongly that the Greek text which he edited was a re-translation from the Latin. ... Before its publication, Tischendorf discovered his Codex Sinaiticus, with the Pastor of Hermas nearly complete in Greek at the end. The Greek of the Codex may be pronounced nearly the same in substance with that of the Leipzig Codex, but there is great variety in the readings and forma. The difference, however, is not such as in the slightest degree to diminish the force of the arguments which Tischendorf adduced to prove that the Greek was a re-translation from the Latin. The critic, nevertheless, changed his opinion on falling in with the Sinaitic Codex, Strangely enough, just as the Greek of the Leipzig Codex was found to agree more with the recently discovered Palatine than with the Vulgate, so Schodde affirms that the Codex Sinaiticus agrees more with the recently discovered Ethiopic than with any other." ....

"First, there are words and grammatical forms and constructions which seem to indicate an age later than that of Hermas. We need not go minutely into these. Dindorf has mentioned some in his Preface to Anger and Dindorf's edition of the Pastor of Hennas. Tischendorf has adduced a considerable number in his tractate in Dressel's edition, "De Henna Greco Lipsiensi." He speaks there of the barbarous character of the Codex. And I have adduced a number in my Apostolical Fathers. Secondly, there are expressions, and even large passages, which seem to be translated from the Latin ; and there is a considerable admixture of Latin words in the Greek text"

"Zahn has tried to account for these phenomena by supposing that Hermas was illiterate, that he was a Jew, and that Greek was to him as a foreign language. In order to prove his Jewish origin, he appeals to a number of phrases which apparently are derived in form from the Hebrew. But he himself supplies us with facts which practically nullify this part of his supposition." ...

"Zahn has also appealed to the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as presenting great similarity of style. There is no doubt that there is similarity, and a comparison of the two books is most instructive. But in making the comparison we encounter a difficult problem which meets us everywhere in these investigations, namely, how far the peculiarities of the text are to be ascribed to the writer, and how far to the transcribers." ..

"Not do we think that the facts bear out the supposition of Zahn, that Hermas was illiterate. The book is a work of considerable literary merit, of clear judgment, of elevated morality, and of no mean power of thought. The phraseology also takes a wide range. " ...

"We do not think, therefore, that Zahn has been successful in proving his main proposition, though his chapter on the subject is deeply interesting, and a valuable contribution to the history of the Greek language. We still hold to the opinion that the mould of Greek in which the work of Hermas is cast belongs to a later age than that of the original writer.

There are two ways by which we may account for this peculiar form. The one first adopted and then renounced by Tischendorf is to suppose that the present Greek is a re-translation from the Latin. But there is unquestionably a difficulty in drawing this inference from the facts of the case—indeed, in at any time drawing the inference that a book is a translation. An Englishman writing an original work in German would be sure to introduce English phrases and idioms into his German, but their presence would not prove that the work was a translation, but that the writer was an Englishman. So the writer of the Shepherd was without doubt a resident in Italy. It is possible that he may have been born and brought up in Rome. Latin may have been his native tongue. If so, then his Greek style would be largely modified by his Latin mode of thought, especially if he were not a purist in style. There is no doubt that the writer of the Shepherd has introduced Latin words and Latin phrases, and there are some passages of considerable length which seem to us to read exactly as if they were translated from the Latin. But do these warrant the inference that they were translated ? May not the writer have thought them out in Latin and written them in Greek?

The other way of accounting for the peculiarity is to suppose that the work was modernized in the course of time. The book was popular among the Greeks. The number of MSS. of the Vulgate translation is proof that it was not unpopular also among the Latin-speaking Christians of the Middle Ages. Like popular books, it suffered all kinds of treatment. It was abridged, as the Ethiopic translation shews. It was carelessly transcribed, a fact proved by the numerous omissions that occur in the Sinaitic and Leipzig Codices, and divergencies of readings in the Vulgate and Palatine. Its contents also were treated with great freedom. There are extant two works which appropriate large portions of Hennas without acknowledgment." ...

"If we put all the facts of the case together, perhaps the hypothesis which will account for all the features of the problem is a combination of the two ways already mentioned. We have the fact that the extracts made by Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen differ considerably from the text of Hermas as it now stands. We have the fact that all the forms in which Hermas has come down to us differ from each other. The very first sentence is widely different in most forms, and is slightly different in all. Then the Greek of Hermas partakes much more of neo-Hellenic peculiarities than any contemporary work ; and there can be no doubt that the substance of the book was presented to mediaeval readers not merely as the production of Hermas, but as the production of writers of a much later age. We have to add to this that large portions have a considerable Latin element in them, putting all these circumstances together, we think that the best solution of the problem is to suppose that we have, as the basis of our present Greek manuscripts, a recension and modernized version belonging to the sixth or seventh century, and that the editor used all the materials at his command, having probably in his possession large portions of the original text, but filling up gaps from some Latin translations, introducing parts from some modifications of the text, such as those of pseudo-Athanasius, and clothing the whole in the language current among the Christian populace of his day. We may add that the texts of Hilgenfeld and Gebhardt partake somewhat of the character which we have assigned to our sixth-century recension. They have used the Latin translations to amend the Greek, and where the Greek is defective they have re-translated the Latin into Greek.

.... the date of the Sinaitic Codex, and the evidence points to a strong confirmation of Hilgenfeld's opinion that that Codex is not earlier than the sixth century.
=======================================

Steven:
The bottom line here is simple, even if the descriptions are lengthy. The Sinaiticus Hermas is not 4th century and it is "not earlier than the sixth century". Thus Sinaiticus is not a 4th century manuscript.

And clearly, Donaldson, based on his linguistic arguments, would go significantly later. We can note that there are pressures to consider Sinaiticus as somehow authentic overall, and reasonably early, as we saw in the shrill Saturday Review attempt.

Today, many of us coming up to speed understand that if one book of Sinaiticus is post-6th century, that means the whole codex is far later than today's theories allow.

And the 19th century may well be the one sound explanation.

Theodor Zahn (1838-1933) had offered some creative ideas to try to explain the Hermas enigma, however ultimately they change little. Abd we would have to see the Zahn material to see if he directly worked with the Donaldson (and earlier Dindorf and Tischendorf) linguistic arguments. And if his goal was to salvage the early date of Sinaiticus.

The Theodor Zahn material should be in one of these:

Hermae Pastor E Novo Testamento Illustratus (1867)
http://books.google.com/books?id=5UlQAAAAcAAJ
https://archive.org/stream/hermaepastorenov00zahn...

Der Hirt des Hermas (1868)
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001925664
http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/en ... 00002.html

============================

One simple and clear conclusion I will make right now.

The James Donaldson analysis on Hermas and Sinaiticus deserves scholarly respect, analysis and careful consideration. Outside the circular mindset.

============================

While there are many historical arguments that are compelling against Sinaiticus antiquity authenticity (e.g. how the ms. poofed into existence, the fanciful Tischendorf fabrications, the corroboration of Kallinikos, the Hermas coincidence ) .. we are now discovering a new realm of evidence.

We see this with the white parchment ms. An amazing situation, missed until 2014. Now how did the ms that stayed in Egypt get discoloured while the early Russian ms stayed as white parchment?

And, clearly, the Donaldson linguistic arguments are fundamental.

There is another article by Donaldsdon that begins to delve into Barnabas. That will need to be kept a bit separate for now, and has its own especially incredible aspects.

Now, with the Hermas linguistics, what we have done today is simply lay down the basic history and evidences. (After the 1870s the basic attitude was hands off, dunno, don't care.)

We will share as more input becomes available. And we encourage our classical language scholars to utilize their skills and training and contacts. And, we have some special info coming down the pike.

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomalies

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:37 pm

********************************************************************************
James Donaldson on Hermas linguistic anomalies - the papyri factor
********************************************************************************
Donaldson also discussed the Hermas linguistic problem when he wrote an article about the Clement of Rome ms.

Donaldson returned to the Hermas linguistic conundrum after discussing the Sinaiticus provenance problems.

The Theological review (1877)
The New MS. of Clement of Rome
James Donaldson
http://books.google.com/books?id=W0EEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA35
"Now the remains that we have of the Greek of the Romans prove that that Greek was not Hellenistic, and there is no reason why it should have been so. The only exception to this is the Pastor of Hermas; but the Greek of that book is still a problem. It has a great deal more of the Hellenistic and Neo-Hellenic than any work that has come down to us anterior to the works of Ptochoprodromus." p. 43
Theodorus Ptochoprodromus (Hilarion) was a 12th century Byzantine Greek writer, another Donaldson tells us a bit about his writing.

A History of the Literature of Ancient Greece: From the Foundation of the Socratic Schools to the Taking of Constantinople by the Turks. Being a Continuation of K. O. Müller's Work, Volume 2 (1858)
John William Donaldson
http://books.google.com/books?id=0q0UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA390
The twelfth century produced a sophist of very considerable pretensions in Theodorus Prodromus or Ptochoprodromus, a monk who was known in the cloister as Hilarion ... Besides a number of poems chiefly in iambic verse, Theodore Prodromus wrote treatises on rhetoric, dialogues, discourses and letters; his highest flights were imitations of Lucian, especially an essay called ''the sale of poetical and political lives' in imitation of the trreat satirist's 'sale of lives.'
Theodore Prodromos (ca. 1100 - 1165/70 )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Prodromos

Donaldson is saying that the Sinaiticus Hermas looks like it is written in a late Greek. And we saw he had related to the Tischendorf accusations against the Codex Athous-Lipsiensi from Simonides. Tischendorf arguments about it being a medieval retranslation that he withdrew when it became clear that this could be a problem for Sinaiticus.

One potential proof of the pudding of this concern would be seen in a comparison of the Sinaiticus anomalies with the papyri, especially:

Papyrus (Greek)
Oxyrhynchus 4706 2nd-3rd (Visions and Mandates)
Michigan 129, 3rd c. 51.8-82.1 (Similitudes)

You can see the papyri sections here:

Early Christian Manuscripts: Examples of Applied Method and Approach (2010)
The Egyptian Hermas: The Shepherd in Egypt before Constantine
Malcolm Choat, Rachel Yuen-Collingridge
http://books.google.com/books?id=gsoFMTdK1gcC&pg=PA212

The Sinaiticus Hermas linguistic anomalies, highlighted by James Donaldson, is an area awaiting modern scholarly review and examination. At the time he wrote we did not have the papyri for comparison.

Let's put this in plain English. If the Hermas papyri look like the Greek of 250-300 AD. and the Sinaiticus Hermas is very different, and looks like a Greek of 1000 AD, then the evidence is that the Sinaiticus Hermas, like the Athous-Lipsiensis Hermas, was written no earlier than 1000 AD. The difference is

** .. the dating of the Sinaiticus Hermas pulls forward with it the whole Sinaiticus manuscript. **

Then we have to consider what theories are consistent with Sinaiticus having this late date of composition.
(there are conceivably complex scenarios where Sinaiticus is actually a multiple composition, old and new)

My own reading of literature like modern literature on Hermas and Barnabas, and other writings like the Apocrypha and the "LXX", is often a sense that the Sinaiticus ms. is like an ugly duckling. It is acknowledged, but avoided. You sense that the writers do not respect Sinaiticus as a truly ancient treasure-text. They are constrained however because they are supposed to "know" that it is 4th century.

User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomal

Post by Leucius Charinus » Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:36 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
DONALDSON wrote:
.... the date of the Sinaitic Codex, and the evidence points to a strong confirmation
of Hilgenfeld's opinion that that Codex is not earlier than the sixth century.

The James Donaldson analysis on Hermas and Sinaiticus deserves scholarly respect, analysis and careful consideration. Outside the circular mindset.

///

While there are many historical arguments that are compelling against Sinaiticus antiquity authenticity (e.g. how the ms. poofed into existence, the fanciful Tischendorf fabrications, the corroboration of Kallinikos, the Hermas coincidence ) .. we are now discovering a new realm of evidence.

///

Now, with the Hermas linguistics, what we have done today is simply lay down the basic history and evidences.
(After the 1870s the basic attitude was hands off, dunno, don't care.)
Really interesting stuff thanks Steven.
Thanks for sharing.

Be well,



LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]

Post Reply