Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomalies

[andrewcriddle]

The standard account of Simonides and the Shepherd of Hermas is here Athos Codex

According to this account Simonides' version of the Shepherd of Hermas was based on an ancient manuscript but Simonides did very strange things when preparing his edition. For example he supplied material missing in the Greek manuscript by translating from a Latin version of Hermas back into Greek. This caused legitimate scholarly suspicion, (quite apart from Simonides' dodgy reputation).

Andrew Criddle

[Steven Avery]

Andrew, agreed. I mentioned that resource, but not as directly, earlier. I tend to think Lambrou/Lampros did a good job in unraveling the history, and is quite critical of Simonides.

Keep in mind, though, that James Donaldson knew well both the Athos and Sinaiticus Hermas, and he was asserting that the Sinaiticus Hermas falls as an early Greek writing, aware of the differences. So far, I've not seen a real evaluation of his arguments, even though the papyri should help if anybody ever does a real study that is not presuppositional to Sinaiticus being 4th century.

It can be contended that Hermas was written by a Latin-oriented writer, as in Cuthbert Hamilton Turner, Shepherd of Hermas and the Problem of its Text, 1920, which talks of the Latinity of Hermas (perhaps because of Sinaiticus). James Donaldson seems to be quite aware of that possibility.

Other than filling in a few dots above, I hope to get to Barnabas by tomorrow. Some elements of that are pretty amazing.

Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Now the beginning of the Barnabas studies is 1864.
Again, I am going to work primarily with James Donaldson, and any responses.

A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine: From the Death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council, Volume 1 (1864)
James Donaldson
http://books.google.com/books?id=YnUeAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA204

First, for introduction, you can see that Donaldson was actively involved in the discussion as to whether Barnabas wrote the Epistle of Barnabas.

The external evidence is then decidedly in favour of the authorship by the Apostle Barnabas, yet it is scanty -and not that of contemporaries. The internal evidence is conclusive against the authorship of Barnabas. The few facts which are related of Barnabas are just such as make it next to impossible that Barnabas could have written this letter. Barnabas, we are told in the Acts, was a Levite; we are told also that he was sent to reconcile the Jewish Christians and the heathen Christians; we know also that he was an intimate friend-and companion of Paul, and must have known and agreed with Paul's opinions regarding Judaism. And we know also that in the only difference he had with Paul on the subject of Judaism, he erred in too great attachment to the Jewish party (Gal 2:13). ... We have now set forth the main point. But the evidence against the authorship of Barnabas, as might be expected, lies thick in every page. We shall set down the principal of the objections which have been urged. p. 204-205

This is a 50 page section, p. 201-251, discussing many elements of the Epistle, leading to a discussion of the manuscript history, which begins on p. 251. "IV Literature". We will go to the bottom of p. 253, where Sinaiticus is introduced.

A copy of the Greek original of Barnabas has been found by Tischendorf, and has been published in two forms; in the Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus and in the Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, and the various readings with the new portion of Greek are given in the second edition of Dressel's Patrum Apostolicorum Opera. The Greek of the first four chapters differs considerably from the Latin, but the differences are not of great moment as far as the sentiments of Barnabas are concerned. In the other chapters the verbal variations are exceedingly numerous, but unimportant. Sometimes its readings are decidedly superior to those found in the other MSS., and it contains many of the conjectural emendations previously proposed by scholars. Sometimes, on the other hand, its readings are unintelligible and perplexing. The genuineness of the Greek of the first four chanters is open to doubt. There is not much satisfactory evidence on the one side or the other. But the occurrence of some very peculiar words, and the impossibility of some portions of our Latin translation having been based on it, tell against the genuineness of the newly-discovered text.

An English translation is given in Wake's Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers. The text of the Sinaitic Codex has been translated with great care in the Journal of Sacred Literature for October 1863, and April 1864. p. 253-255

Simply put, Donaldson, for linguistic reasons, believes that the Barnabas text is not an authentic 4th-century Greek text. Later, he goes into this more.

Note: his reference to: "contains many of the conjectural emendations previously proposed by scholars" may be ironic. It has often occurred that non-genuine texts base themselves on modern scholarship to fill in the gaps, and has been a smoking ink-spot. And Simonides was accused of using published texts and emendation suggestion improvements at times. However, I would not press the point without first knowing many of the emendations, and also whether they were published as a group, and how strong are the matches.

The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record

The Epistle of Barnabas: From the Codex Sinaiticus (Oct. 1863) p. 66-81
http://books.google.com/books?id=VLcRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA66

The Epistle of Barnabas: From the Codex Sinaiticus (April 1864) p. 103-113
http://books.google.com/books?id=onotAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA103

In 1867, the Barnabas text of Donaldson was published with a new, small introduction, that does not add to our Sinaiticus studies. He uses the 1866 text of Hilgenfeld in these notes.

The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers (1867)
Introductory Notice - James Donaldson
http://books.google.com/books?id=8MlFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA99

Next, we will go up to Donaldson's 1874 writing on Barnabas.

Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

In 1874, when he was working with the Hermas problems as well, James Donaldson added to our Barnabas Hermas information.

The Apostolical Fathers: A Critical Account of Their Genuine Writings and of Their Doctrines (1874)
James Donaldson
Ch. IV The Epistle of Barnabas - The Authorship
http://books.google.com/books?id=_LwOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA248

Authorship, p. 248
Abstract p. 277
Doctrines of Barnabas p. 288 - we get to the key section p. 312-316

Literature p. 312
http://books.google.com/books?id=_LwOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA312

We get to p. 315, which updates the previous description with the intervening years.
Vokmar - Turici, 1864
Hilgenfeld - 1866
Müller - 1869

"Simonides also printed an edition of the entire text, as found in the Sinaitic, with notes; on the title-page of which the date is 1843, and the place of publication Smyrna." p. 315

Then on p. 316, after the part above

it contains many of the conjectural emendations previously proposed by scholars. Sometimes, on the other hand, its readings are unintelligible and perplexing. The genuineness of the Greek of the first four chanters is open to doubt. There is not much satisfactory evidence on the one side or the other. But the occurrence of some very peculiar words, and the impossibility of some portions of our Latin translation having been based on it, tell against the genuineness of the newly-discovered text.

Then we have some linguistic references and the James Donaldson summary on p. 316-317:

For now, the picture is not being picked up by the Img tags, not sure why, please go to Dropbox shared url, same method as a pic working above.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ghfy95nm8uf8a ... s.jpg?dl=0

Donaldson - Barnabas Greek of the first.jpg (80 KiB) Viewed 10367 times

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

Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Now as we pointed out in an earlier post on Hermas:
viewtopic.php?p=21641#p21641

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

was very upset with Donaldson for rocking the Sinaiticus apple-cart juggernaut.

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

On a more scholarly level, the German Lutheran scholar Oscar von Gebhardt (1844-1906) noted what was written by Donaldson. And it does not seem like the addressed the Barnabas linguistic concerns, maybe there was some on Hermas, and I will leave some of this up to our German and/or Latin fluent experts. Also if I remember, we come back to Donaldson after this.

My main purpose here is to lay out the more glaring and significant histories and puzzles that have never been properly examined. (Way beyond the various puzzles and corrections that were pointed out by James Anson Farrer in 1907.)

Our white parchment 1844 Frederico-Augustanus is one, clashing with the 1859 bulk of Sinaiticus and giving evidence of tampering, and, if so, matching to a "T" for Tischendorf with specific accusations that had been made -- of tampering with the manuscript.

The puzzling history with the Shepherd of Hermas is another (even more so once we add the Donaldson linguistics).

And now we see a new realm with the Epistle Barnabas that his its own unique elements, linguistic and textual history.

Patrum apostolicorum opera. Textum recens., notis illustr., versione Lat. instruxit A.R.M. Dressel. Ed. post Dresselianam alteram 3a. Recens. O. de Gebhardt, A. Harnack, T. Zahn (1875)
http://books.google.com/books?id=iNkCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR18
https://archive.org/stream/patrumaposto ... 4/mode/1up

4. Donaldsonius (The Apostolical Fathers, Loud. 1874 p.315) scripsit: Simonides also printed an edition of' the entire text, an found in the Sinaitic, with notes; on the title-page of which the date is 1843 {?), and the place of publication Smyrna. Librum inspicere mihi non contigit

.
Thus Gebhardt noted that the Donaldson reference was interesting, a bit puzzling (Sinaiticus was discovered by Tischendorf later) but he did not have a book to read, so he left it with a "?".

Gerhardt also referenced Donaldson a few places, e.g. Donaldson 1866 on p. 212
http://books.google.com/books?id=iNkCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA212

And he does go into Hermas linguistic issues in the context of Clement of Rome (using the 1876 edition)
http://books.google.com/books?id=gNg7AA ... g=RA3-PR10

That response may need to be added to an earlier page on Hermas
viewtopic.php?p=21641#p21641

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

So we have some linguistic discussions that have never really been evaluated, and we have an interesting note about a Barnabas edition that had flown under the radar.

Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Above when I was referring to Gebhardt, possibly Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930) should be included in the Hermas and Barnabas discussions, as Gebhardt-Harnack. However, as the senior of the two, I will at times continue simply referring to Gebhardt. Theodor Zahn worked in other parts of the ECW book.

The Athenaeum magazine was very pro-Tischendorf and very much opposed to all aspects of the authenticity concerns that came out of the Simonides controversies. They saw the puzzled response by Gebhardt about this 1843 Barnabas edition (this shows you that there was some level of ongoing British-German scholarship interaction) and attempted to clear it up.

In January 8, 1876, the Athenaeum was reviewing the recent 1875 early church writers edition of Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn, where the puzzled reference occurred. They offered the following explanation:

The Athenaeum, Issues 2514-2539 - Jan, 1876
http://books.google.com/books?id=kJw3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA53

The editors (Gebhardt/Harnack) are puzzled by an assertion in Dr. Donaldsdon's 'Apostolic Fathers' on which we are able to throw some light. Dr. Donaldson mentions an edition of the Epistle of Barnabas, printed by Simonides, and containing the text as found in the Sinaitic Codex, but bearing the date 1843, and the place of publication Smyrna. The editors put a query at the date 1843. The date given, notwithstanding its apparent improbability, is given correctly, and the edition of Barnabas is one of the most curious of the many fabrications which Simonides devised. That Greek went to the trouble of printing at his own expense an edition of the entire Epistle of Barnabas, for the very purpose of putting the date 1843 upon it. He wished to make people believe that he had manuscripts of the entire Barnabas before Tischendorf found his famous codex. The title-page of the strange document states that the text of the Epistle of Barnabas is based on seven manuscripts. In the copy of it which Simonides gave to the writer of this article, he had altered the word ... and he had made several corrections in the Preface. Simonides was not content with printing the text he produced in attestation of the genuineness and date of his edition a newspaper of Smyrna, published in 1843, containing a long review of the work. The paper and the print of the newspaper looked uncommonly fresh, and, on subsequent inquiries at Smyrna, it was found that no such newspaper had ever existed, and that the printer whose name appeared at the bottom of it was also entirely unknown. Simonides had taken the trouble to fabricate his newspaper as well as the date of his edition.p. 53-54

Pic of section
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mp7thy5h5zg8e ... 6.jpg?dl=0

Athenaeum 1876.jpg (36.34 KiB) Viewed 10367 times

Steven

[Stephan Huller]

very interesting. thank you

[Steven Avery]

This Athenaeum fascinating explanation may leave you with as many puzzles as before.

Did Simonides really create a whole new Barnabas edition, with a Preface with explanations of the mss, and full text, simply to put on a back-date and walk into the Athenaeum? Get dissed, and then walk out? And even add a self-written self-published bogus long newspaper review? And then, the skilled forger used ink not dry? Or at least "uncommonly fresh"? How did James Donaldson, years after Simonides had left the scene, see and reference the edition? And, if the Athenaeum had suspicions, would they really do a thorough and fair background check on the materials?

Remember, there was a lot invested in scholarly authority and expertise on the Sinaiticus authenticity and 4th century date of Tischendorf. Scholars like recognition, position and $, and they definitely don't like egg on the face.

And such an 1843 Simonides Barnabas edition, published in Smyrna, might very well deep-six the whole Sinaiticus authenticity position. Hmmm...

===

To the German editors this explanation, as is, was acceptable, as was published in a couple of succeeding ECW editions. Here in the next Barnabas edition they dutifully reproduced the Athenaeum explanation without a hint of critical inquiry:

Barnabae epistula: graece et latine : recensuerunt et illustraverunt Papiae quae supersunt, Presbyterorum reliquias ab Ireneo Servatas, Vetus Ecclesiae Romanae symbolum, Epistulam ad Diognetum (1878)
http://books.google.com/books?id=7IwYgN ... g=RA1-PR23

Res mutata est invento codice Sinaitico Barnabam integrum continente, cuius accuratissimam notitiam Tischendorfio debemus.3

3. Si Simonidi fides esset, ipse multo ante Tischendorflum e codice Sinaitico aliisque sex vel septem codicibus integram Barnabae epistulam edidit. Audias quae de famoso illo Graeculo Doualdsonius retulit:

Dr Donaldson mentions [The Apostolic Fathers, Lond. 1874 p. 315] an edition of the Epistle of Barnabas, printed by Simonides, and containing the text as found in the Sinaitic Codex, but bearing the date 1843, and the place of publication Smyrna ... The date given, notwithstanding its apparent improbability, is given correctly, and the edition of Barnabas is one of the most curious of the many fabrications which Simonides devised. That Greek went to the trouble of printing at his own expense an edition of the entire Epistle of Barnabas, for the very purpose of putting the date 1843 upon it. He wished to make people believe that he had manuscripts if the entire Barnabas before Tischendorf found his famous codex. The title-page of the strange document states that the text of the Epistle of Barnabas is based on seven manuscripts. In the copy of it which Simonides gave to the writer of this article, he had altered the word ... and he had made several corrections in the Preface. Simonides was not content with printing the text, he produced in attestation of the genuineness and date of his edition a newspaper of Smyrna, published in 1843, containing a long review of the work. The paper and the print of the newspaper looked uncommonly fresh, and, on subsequent inquiries at Smyrna, it was found that no such newspaper had ever existed, and that the printer whose name appeared at the bottom of it was also entirely unknown. Simonides had taken the trouble to fabricate his newspaper as well as the date of his edition. (The Athenaeum, Jan. 8. 1870 p. 53 sq.)

Pic from Barnabas book
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vqjlmabxm3jab ... m.jpg?dl=0

Barnabus 1878 Gebhardt on Donaldson Athenaeum.jpg (84.23 KiB) Viewed 10367 times

Steven Avery

[Leucius Charinus]

And such an 1843 Simonides Barnabas edition, published in Smyrna, might very well deep-six the whole Sinaiticus authenticity position.

Fascinating. Way before the internet, it took scholarship seven or eight centuries to categorically expose "Pseudo-Isidore" as a forgery mill.


Be well,


LC

[Steven Avery]

very interesting. thank you

Welcome. Any feedback from friends and contacts in the scholarly community is most appreciated, especially if they have shown a propensity to think outside the box. Generally speaking, the information on these two threads is new (the white parchment discrepancy) or under the radar for 140 years (the linguistic arguments of Donaldson) or buried by a handwave 140 years ago (the question of the 1843 Simonides Barnabas.)

And there are issues here that can be considered by anybody with good skills in the classical languages, especially if they are strong on the early church writers. Please understand that with the linguistic parts of Hermas an Barnabas, we look to those with such skills to assess the Donaldson arguments (and any responses that are in the German literature.) However, we do have the capability to lay them out.

(Note: I may have omitted a bit from Zahn above, some interaction by Donaldson, if so I will check and at least put in the urls with the pages.)

And such an 1843 Simonides Barnabas edition, published in Smyrna, might very well deep-six the whole Sinaiticus authenticity position.

Fascinating. Way before the internet, it took scholarship seven or eight centuries to categorically expose "Pseudo-Isidore" as a forgery mill. Be well,LC

Thanks. It is interesting how much proper use of the internet, combined with the ease of long-distance email contacts, can expedite research.

On the issues on the continuation of the drama of the 1843 Barnabas, and the Athenaeum hand-wave, I am waiting on a skilled researcher (one who take an enormous amount of public flak simply for raising this authenticity issue). For now, I can show you where the list of books including that publication is in Simonide's Periplus of Hannon.

Periplus of Hannon (1864)
http://books.google.com/books?id=GYABAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR11


Section of page through 1843 with Barnabas
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tee6i4bvj034f ... s.jpg?dl=0

Periplus.jpg (22.64 KiB) Viewed 10367 times

Now, to be fair, if Simonides had went to all the effort to print up a special issue of Barnabas in 1863, with a back-date, he would likely include it with the same back-date in an 1864 publication.

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

One other point I would like to share here. The recognition of this 1843 publication did not end with Donaldson in the 1870s. (Although it was not mentioned in the excellent 1907 book by James Anson Farrer, which sought to reconsider the controversies around Simonides and Sinaiticus.)

Here you can see the 1843 Barnabas listed in an 1907 bibliographic synopsis by Ernest Cushing Richardson:

The Ante-Nicene fathers: translations of the writings of the fathers down to A.D. 325, Volume 10
http://books.google.com/books?id=lOVYAA ... &q&f=false

V. BARNABAS Epistle
....
Simonides. Smyrna, 1843 [Sinait. Text.]

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

Steven