Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Hermas - Codex Athous "varies in small details but apparently not in substance" from Sinaiticus

  1. Default Hermas - Codex Athous "varies in small details but apparently not in substance" from Sinaiticus

    This is planned to move over to the Hermas and Barnabas section.

    Sister thread with PICS:

    CARM and BCHF discussions on the Hermas and Barnabas linguistics
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?496-CARM-and-BCHF-discussions-on-the-Hermas-and-Barnabas-linguistics

    Plus there is a separate Donaldson linguistics thread. See the Hermas and Barnabas section of PBF.

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

    My BVDB fan club was wondering if I have read Skeat & Milne, or just skim in google.
    brandpluckt also asked me about some basically meaningless 91.2% statistic that was given in a K. Martin Heide paper.

    That paper of Heide I discussed here:

    CARM and BCHF discussions on the Hermas and Barnabas linguistics
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...as-linguistics

    Which points to a textual criticism post

    Note that some of the pictures from Skeat and Heide are placed there. The history of the Codex Athous is given in the introduction of Lake.

    (brandpluckt and Euthymius could simply search in the forum and have many of his questions answered.)

    In fact, I did miss a rather amazing quote earlier from Skeat:

    "The text of the Codex Athous as printed by Lake1 has been used in this conjectural restoration, a text from which the Sinaiticus varies in small details but apparently not in substance"

    Facsimiles of the Athos Fragments of the Shepherd of Hermas, Oxford, 1907

    Skeat & Milne, Scribes & Correctors, 1938 p. 16
    Another who utilized this reference is K. Martin Heide:

    Assessing the Stability of the Transmitted Texts of the New Testament and the Shepherd of Hermas” (2011) in:
    The Textual Reliability of the New Testament: Bart D. Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue,
    https://www.academia.edu/6060500/_As...s_2011_125_159
    German (2009)

    Also published in:

    The Reliability of the New Testament
    https://books.google.com/books?id=UaRkR3WI0rYC&pg=PA152

    Here is the Lake book, it could use some extracts here:

    Facsimiles of the Athos fragments of the Shepherd of Hermas (1907)
    https://archive.org/details/facsimilesofatho00herm
    https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001757239

  2. Default

    Remember what James Anson Farrer said about the fact of the Hermas edition of Simonides:

    "The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance"
    "The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance" - James Anson Farrer
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...s-Anson-Farrer

    And what Skeat writes is an echo of James Donaldson.

    Everyone acknowledges the similarity. e.g. Hoole and Robinson are quoted on this thread:

    recent Hermas scholarship
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?163-recent-Hermas-scholarship

    Notice the circularity in that they do not come to the sensible conclusion (the Sinaiticus had late Palatine influences) but simply start with the presupposition that Sinaiticus is 4th century. Thus, Hermas scholarship is Tischenduped.

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

    There are distinct issues that all are important to the question of Sinaiticus non-authenticity

    1) general coincidence that Simonides published Hermas edition before Sinaiticus discovery - Farrer
    1a) Same with Barnabas

    2) linguistic accusation and convoluted retraction against the Codex Athous by Tischendorf

    3) James Donaldson linguistic assertion that neither Hermas or Barnabas could be 4th century

    4) the simple fact (see Skeat) that the Athous edition is exceedingly close to the Sinaiticus Hermas
    4a) similar situation with Barnabas (see Donaldson, and Daniels)


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

    The new emphasis from the Skeat and Heide quotes is on #4. There is no logical reason why a 14th century Greek manuscript on Athos should be so close to a 4th century ms from Alexandria, Ceasarea or Rome. That direction of dependence is extremely unlikely. However if the 14th century Greek ms .was used to make Sinaiticus, then everything fits perfectly!


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •