CARM and BCHF discussions on the Hermas and Barnabas linguistics

[Steven Avery]

Sinaiticus early date refuted by linguistic studies of the learned Scottish classical scholar James Donaldson (1831-1915).

[TC-Alternate-list] Sinaiticus early date refuted by linguistic studies of James Donaldson
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/messages/6012

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

James Donaldson looked especially closely at the Shepherd of Hermas and Barnabas. He put special attention on arguments that Constantine Tischendorf had made against the Hermas publications of 1856. This was when Constantine Simonides "jumped the gun" on the Sinaiticus Hermas, which led to an Anger & Dindorf edition of 1856, followed by a Dressel-Tischendorf edition. There was also an 1859 publication by Simonides that was incorporated by Draesake in the 1887 publication of Hilgenfeld.

Tischendorf said that the Hermas texts had linguistic features that showed them to be of late medieval origin. and supported the charges with linguistic scholarship. (Later, after 1859, Tischendorf put forth a very short and awkward retraction, understanding that the linguistic charges against Hermas could deep-six his push for the ultra-early dating of Sinaiticus.)

Tischendorf had accused the Simonides Hermas of being linguistically no earlier than late medieval. With features like Latin retroversion and a much later Greek vocabulary than the date assigned by Tischendorf. Donaldson argued forcefully that this was in fact an accurate analysis from Tischendorf,. And the accusations applied 100% to the Sinaiticus Hermas as well. as the Simonides Hermas.

His studies were never answered, although a gentleman named Brook Foss Westcott wrote that they "prove too much" (and thus should be ignored, since Sinaiticus was 5th century.) Circular reasoning as a fine art!

James Donaldson wrote about Hermas in 1864 and then about Barnabas in 1874.

Information on the Donaldson linguistic arguments are now online in discussion on two independent forums:

Bible Criticism and History Forum
Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomalies
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1025

CARM
James Donaldson linguistic studies on the Greek Hermas and Barnabas manuscripts
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...-on-the-greek-hermas-and-barnabas-manuscripts

Simonides also had published Barnabas in 1843. That Preface and the accompanying article from Star of the East in Smyrna are only partially translated, and the connections between that edition and Sinaiticus are rather fascinating.

Beyond that, the New Finds of 1975 include a decent section of Hermas that had been trashed, and is now available, and could add to the linguistic scholarship. Afaik, there has not yet been any comparison of the first Hermas edition of 1856 and the New Finds Sinaiticus

Steven Avery

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

PS
In addition there are studies in a few other places on Facebook and off.
On Facebook, we have a Sinaiticus group and a PureBible group.
There is a special website at

Codex Sinaiticus Authenticity Research
http://www.sinaiticus.net/

And I place a lot of research up at :

Sinaiticus - authentic antiquity or modern?
http://www.purebibleforum.com/forumdisplay.php?65-Sinaiticus-authentic-antiquity-or-modern

David W. Daniels has a new book!

Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?
David W. Daniels
https://books.google.com/books?id=bXJGDwAAQBAJ
https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Oldest-Bible-Fake-ebook/dp/B078XKXDW8
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/1442.asp
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/is-the-worlds-oldest-bible-a-fake/id1334750588?mt=11

These linguistic elements are on p. 153-155 and in Chapter 30: The Sinaiticus Smoking Gun

Archived at:

[TC-Alternate-list] Sinaiticus early date refuted by linguistic studies of James Donaldson
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/topics/6012

And similar text at:

[textualcriticism] Sinaiticus early date refuted by linguistic studies of James Donaldson
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/8708

 

[Steven Avery]

Reply of Tommy Wasserman on the yahoo groups textualcriticism forum:

Reply of Tommy Wasserman on the yahoo groups textualcriticism forum:

[textualcriticism] Sinaiticus early date refuted by linguistic studies of James Donaldson
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/8709

Dear list,

For those who want to learn more about Simonides’ forgery of Hermas, I recommend Spyridon Lambros’s A Collation of the Athos codex of the Shepherd of Hermas, available here:
https://archive.org/details/collationofathos00lamp

As for Steven Avery’s conspiracy theory about Sinaiticus not being an ancient manuscript, it is nonsense.

However, there are several good articles on Hermas in Sinaiticus. I will only mention three:

For codicology and palaeography, see Dan Batovici’s “The Less-expected Books in Codex Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. Codicological and Palaeographical Considerations” (more publication details here http://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/abs/10.1484/M.BIB-EB.5.105419).

For the correctors work on the Hermas text in Sinaiticus: idem, “Textual Revisions of the Shepherd in Codex Sinaiticus” in Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 18.3 (2014), online here https://www.academia.edu/7980907/Textual_Revisions_of_the_Shepherd_in_Codex_Sinaiticus_Zeitschrift_f%C3%BCr_Antikes_Christentum_18.3_2014_

For the text of Hermas in Sinaiticus compared to other witnesses, see K. Martin Heide, “Assessing the Stability of the Transmitted Texts of the New Testament and the Shepherd of Hermas” in: The Textual Reliability of the New Testament: Bart D. Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue, ed. by Robert Stewart, Minneapolis: Fortress Press 2011: 125–159 (Heide’s collation of Sinaiticus against P. Bodmer 38, dated to the 4/5th cent., by the way, shows that these two MSS agree 91.2%).

Tommy Wasserman

My response is on TC-Alternate and may be put on TextualCriticism. Here I make minor improvements, especially in formatting.

[TC-Alternate-list] Sinaiticus early date refuted by linguistic studies of James Donaldson
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/messages/6013
Hi TC-Alternate,

Intro:

A mirror post to the TextualCriticism YahooGroups forum (which may or may not post this as a continuation of the discussion.)

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

New Historical Coincidence and Impossible Knowledge page online:

Separate from the colouring of the manuscript to try to make the main section "yellow with age", the "phenomenally good condition", the homoeoteleutons that match Claromontanus, and the linguistics, the actual history of coincidences is a primary part of the Sinaiticus story. And recently I have summarized a few elements here:

the historical imperative - Kallinikos and Simonides speaking from the inside
https://archive.org/details/collationofathos00lamp

As for Steven Averys conspiracy theory about Sinaiticus not being an ancient manuscript, it is nonsense. However, there are several good articles on Hermas in Sinaiticus. I will only mention three:

> For codicology and palaeography, see Dan Batovicis
The Less-expected Books in Codex Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. Codicological and Palaeographical Considerations (more publication details here http://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/abs/10.1484/M.BIB-EB.5.105419).

> For the correctors work on the Hermas text in Sinaiticus: ​

​

idem, Textual Revisions of the Shepherd in Codex Sinaiticus in Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 18.3 (2014), online here https://www.academia.edu/7980907/Textual_Revisions_of_the_Shepherd_in_Codex_Sinaiticus_Zeitschrift_f%C3%BCr_Antikes_Christentum_18.3_2014_

For the text of Hermas in Sinaiticus compared to other witnesses, see

K. Martin Heide,
Assessing the Stability of the Transmitted Texts of the New Testament and the Shepherd of Hermas in: The Textual Reliability of the New Testament: Bart D. Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue, ed. by Robert Stewart, Minneapolis: Fortress Press 2011: 125159 (Heides collation of Sinaiticus against P. Bodmer 38, dated to the 4/5th cent., by the way, shows that these two MSS agree 91.2%). [/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]
[/SIZE]
==================================

We see that Tommy Wasserman simply ignores the James Donaldson linguistic analysis!

That analysis is one of many evidences that shows Sinaiticus to be much later than the Tischendorf-pushed theory of a 4th century manuscript. One irony is that James Donaldson was following up on arguments first given by Tischendorf. Linguistic arguments against the 1856 Hermas Athos and Lipsiensis editions actually being an antiquity text, showing, rather that they were influenced by Latin retroversion and later Greek vocabulary.

Is it possible that Tommy Wasserman does not understand the basis of a linguistic argument for a late text?

One problem is that the James Donaldson articles (on either Hermas or Barnabas) never did receive a response, other than Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) complaining that they "prove too much". (Meaning .. we have to assume that Sinaiticus is ancient, we need it for our new textual theories.) So the attempts to defend Sinaiticus have no published counter to the Donaldson linguistics analysis. This is why Wasserman tried diversion instead of response.

This ignoring of evidences is not unusual. Tommy Wasserman has similarly ignored all the major basic evidences, instead simply wearing a tin foil hat and saying "conspiracy theory":

Basic Evidences Ignored by Tommy Wasserman and those asserting Sinaiticus authenticity

a) white parchment of the Leipzig 1844 manuscript - there is no yellowing of age

b) stained yellow nature of the British Library 1859 section - with visible artificial staining -

c) the BEFORE and AFTER visible by simply looking at the professional photography of the CSP. - available since 2009

d) supper-supple condition, sans dirt and grime, easy page turning, that does not exist for truly ancient mss - "phenomenally good condition", homoeoteleutons from Claromontanus of sense-lines (text put in margin) which change textual theories

f) historical imperatives : factual knowledge that supports the Simonides involvement in the ms. creation - "coincidences" everywhere and impossible knowledge and history that demonstrates Simonides involvement

g) Simonides wrote the Barnabas and Hermas Greek editions before the Simonides discovery

h) history of Tischendorf lies and deceptions and thefts and misdirection around the ms. .. always pushing for the early date, like a man possessed attacking Uspensky, Hilgenfeld, and anybody who would question his great wisdom and the great ancient manuscript

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

Tommy Wasserman above gives three Hermas references:

Dan Batovici, Spyridon Paulou Lampros and K. Martin Heide.

More background on the Hermas scholarship is given on my purebibleforum page, albeit a bit unformatted:

recent Hermas scholarship
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...as-scholarship (correct this)

Let's work with the Tommy Wasserman response, the three references:

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

1) Dan Batovici
The Less-expected Books in Codex Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. Codicological and Palaeographical Considerations
https://www.academia.edu/19798888/T..._Palaeographical_Considerations_Brepols_2015_

As you see, Dan has graciously made this paper available online on academia.edu. And when I wrote to Dan Batovici about the linguistic analysis of James Donaldson showing Hermas to be a later production than normally given by our textual authorities, Dan Batovici (who has been helpful in research and correspondence) replied:

"I haven't treated J. Donaldson in my master thesis as so far as I know he does not treat the things I was pursuing at the time."

Now it is possible that the situation has changed, but as far as I can see Dan has not taken any position on Sinaiticus, Hermas (or Barnabas) linguistics. Not as it pertains to the dating of the manuscript.

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

2) Spyridon Paulou Lampros (1851-1919)
Preface by: Joseph Armitage Robinson (1858-1933)

A Collation of the Athos codex of the Shepherd of Hermas (1888)
Spyridon Lampros and Joseph Armitage Robinson
https://archive.org/details/collationofathos00lamp
https://books.google.com/books?id=dtxJAAAAMAAJ
Preface - p. viii - J. A. R.
https://books.google.com/books?id=dtxJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR8
https://archive.org/stream/acollationathos00lampgoog#page/n12/mode/2up

And I quoted this on CARM, as referenced in my earlier post:
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...-on-the-greek-hermas-and-barnabas-manuscripts

"In 1888 Spyros Lampros wrote a book that may have successfully unraveled the question of the various parts of Hermas that had been in the Simonides edition of 1856. He gives backdrop to some of the Hermas issues and refers to the Tischendorf work above in p. xi of the Preface. Here are extracts:"

Emphasis added:

J.A.R.
At this point Tischendorf took up the matter, and edited for Dressel the three genuine leaves, together with the more recently discovered apographon, which alone he believed to be of any value at all. At the same time he propounded two theories: first, that the Greek text of the Athos MS. was not really the original Greek of the Shepherd, but had been constructed in the middle ages out of some Latin Version, which was however neither the 'Old Latin' nor the 'Palatine: secondly, that the apographon, which Anger and Dindorf had used for their edition, was written by Simonides not on Mount Athos at all, but in Leipsic; whereas the other copy was really made on Mount Athos and afterwards corrected and modified by the aid of the Old Latin Version and the Greek quotations in the Fathers. The fact that Simonides had also produced certain pages of Palimpsest of the Shepherd seemed to reveal the motive of this strange patchwork. Tischendorf held that Simonides had kept back his Athos copy so as to have a different text to use in forging his Palimpsest.

The first of these theories was challenged at the time, and was finally disposed of by Tischendorfs own discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus. From this great Bible he published in 1863 a fragment of the Shepherd, which comprised roughly speaking the first quarter of the book, and presented a text in substantial agreement with that of the Athos MS. The second theory met with a more favourable reception. Anger and Dindorf at once admitted that they had been deceived, and that their edition was absolutely worthless. p. 8

Yet I highlighted what is the basic problem, which was noted en passant by Robinson and matches the claims of James Donaldson:

"the Greek text of the Athos MS. was not really the original Greek of the Shepherd ... Codex Sinaiticus ... presented a text in substantial agreement with that of the Athos MS."

SA:
It is a major omission that Joseph Armitage Robinson does not mention either the Tischendorf linguistic accusation and retraction, nor the Donaldson linguistic analysis. An analysis that confirms the accuracy of the original Tischendorf accusations. Donaldson applies those linguistic arguments to both Hermas and Barnabas in Sinaiticus.

In addition, it is helpful to point out that this section from J.A.R., where the word "forgery" is used:

Appendix A:
On the Forged Greek Ending of the Shepherd of Hermas - p. 25-29 - J.A.R.
https://archive.org/stream/collationofathos00lamp#page/24/mode/2up

Calling a Latin retroversion a forgery is quite dubious. Anyway, these later pages are irrelevant to the part of Hermas that was brought out by Tischendorf as Codex Sinaiticus. Questions may apply to part of the New Finds, when that is properly studied.. Since its section is in the later part of Hermas.

With a bit of tweaking, this is what I wrote on CARM about the section about the ending:

This last is five pages related to showing part of Hermas to be late, non-authentic. The Homilies of Antiochus, quoting Hermas, are used as an aid. The wording on p. 25 sounds similar to Barry's reaction to reading Hermas. It might be a helpful section. There are lots of currents here, e.g: If the Greek ending of Simonides was "forged" (copied from a Latin exemplar by Simonides) similar might also have occurred with a Sinaiticus Hermas text created by Simonides. This would make the linguistic style of the end part recovered in 1975 different from the first 1/3 which was brought out by Tischendorf in 1859. Tischendorf may have had a concern about the ending and thus truncated Hermas, explaining how the fragments got into the New Finds. In support of this theory is the fact that the 1845 listing of the books in Sinaiticus by Uspensky at St. Catherine's simply lists Hermas and Barnabas, with the sense of both being full books.

There was a theory that Simonides planned a Hermas palimpsest forgery in the future. However, that is neither here nor there to the linguistic issues raised by Tischendorf and Donaldson. Issues that point to late dating, and that apply to the Athos and Lipsisensis Hermas as well as the Sinaiticus Hermas.

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

K. (Konrad) Martin Heide

Again, we have the paper online.

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/_A...ewart_Minneapolis_Fortress_Press_2011_125_159
German (2009)
https://www.academia.edu/2177367/_Labilität_und_Festigkeit_des_überlieferten_Textes_des_Neuen_Testaments_und_des_Pastor_Hermae_demonstriert_an_wichtigen_Textzeugen_in_Sacra_Scripta_VII_2009_65_97

Here are a couple of helpful quotes from this paper, I'll leave in two footnote and highlight one part. If you move out of the Sinaiticus 4th century presupposition you will see that this supplies support for what James Donaldson says about the Sinaiticus linguistics and vorlage.

Despite its ugly appearance, hardly recognisable accents,60 frequent inconsistency in thought and other scribal blunders, the Codex Athous provides a text, from which the Sinaiticus varies in small details but apparently not in substance,61 and has solely managed to preserve the correct text at certain places.62 Similar can be said of the Codex Lavra K96. 63. ...

Other non-canonical texts of the early period (for example the Epistle of Barnabas as transmitted in the Codex Sinaiticus) achieve at best a text stability similar to that of the Shepherd of Hermas, particularly as not a single type of text resembles the earliest text of the Epistle of Barnabas.65 Even the Codex Sinaiticus transmits a mere recension of Barnabas. No later than the seventh century did this recension experience change, change however of insignificant nature.66

60. Kirsopp Lake, Facsimiles of the Athos fragments of the Shepherd of Hermas photographed and transcribed (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907), iii-iv.61. H. J. M. Milne and T.C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (London: British Museum, 1938), 16.

61. H. J. M. Milne and T.C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (London: British Museum, 1938), 16.

62. Bonner, Papyrus Codex, 28-29.
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001411456

63. Bandini, “Un nuovo frammento greco,” 120-122.
https://www.persee.fr/doc/rht_0373-6075_2001_num_30_2000_1491

65. Dietrich-Alex Koch, “Textkritik in friihchristlicher Litcratur ausscrhalb des Neuen Testaments: Barn 1,6 als Beispiel” [Textual criticism in early Christian literature outside the New Testament: Barnabas 1:6 as an example] in Recent Developments in Textual Criticism, 149.

66. Ferdinand R. Prostmeier, Der Barnabasbrief, KAV 8 (Gottingen: Vandcnhoeck Ruprecht 1999), 69, cf. 14.

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001757239
https://archive.org/details/facsimilesofatho00herm

From the paper on Academia.edu (the Ehrman-Wallace book is identical)

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

SIDENOTE ON CRITICAL TEXT STATISTICAL MANIPULATIONS:

The statistics that K. Martin Heide gives have their own major problems of methodology and interpretation. Although they are essentially irrelevant to our Hermas linguistics inquiry here. Since the paper was brought up, I will give one example from the first page:

"Almost 5,000 of the 7,947 verses of the New Testament, as contained in the major text-critical editions in the last one-hundred-fifty years (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, Nestle-Aland), show no differences at all in the text. Can the stability of the New Testament text be defined more accurately?"

This ultra-circular reference, using Kurt Aland, is amazing.

Essentially: if you assume Critical text theory, and the near-perfection of the abbreviated Critical Text, which removed 45 verses from the Bible in the later 1800s and led to 1,000s of mostly Greek minority variants being called the original scripture -- then within the reductionist textline you do not have very much variation within the Critical Texts!

(And neatly putting aside the wild Tischendorf editions, where he made thousands of changes to his own 8th edition when he added Sinaiticus. Oops. Omitted by K. Martin Heide.)

Such wild theorizing using a blatant and bizarre selection fallacy, can not be called scholarship.

To be fair, the paper is actually better in methodology than the absurd usage of the Aland nonsense.
However, here are three more doozies from the paper:

"And finally, variants were introduced at the climax of the Byzantine culture during the ninth through the twelfth centuries."

"Theoretically speaking, if one were to compare 2,500 papyri instead of the twenty-five papyri used in the calculation above, then our spectrum of variation would be a hundred times greater."

"obsolete discussions concerning the Comma Johanneum (1 Jn. 5:9)"

”Obsolete” refers better to confused Critical Text apologists who show thenselves to be statistically illiterate. And are still flailing about trying to attack the heavenly witnesses (if they even know the verse number.)

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

Returning to Sinaiticus

And I will note that there is a general problem that our scholars today are often specialists, atomistic in approach. And since the Sinaiticus evidences are so wide-ranging, it takes more of a forensic historian, a journalist or a polymath to see the big picture of the accumulation of evidences. And to understand how they demonstrate that Sinaiticus is a late manuscript.

Although some of the most important evidences are exceedingly simple and clear, such as the colouring of the manuscript, where the 1844 BEFORE and 1859 AFTER is today visible, courtesy of the Codex Sinaiticus Project.

There has been an effort in some circles, pushed especially by a few British scholars who are close to the British Library and institutions with a lot of prestige invested in the "deeply entrenched" modern Sinaiticus scholarship, to cut off discussion of anything about Sinaiticus that:

questions either its 4th-century Tischen-date or brings up any questions about Sinaiticus authenticity.

We have seen a small clique of scholars repeatedly try to pressure forum moderators on places like Facebook or blogs to prevent any open-ended multi-sided discussion that will research the wide spectrum of evidences. While the few attempted responses (e.g. James Snapp and Tommy Wasserman) have been transparently weak and evasive in not dealing with the salient Sinaiticus issues. They prefer:

major in the minors, multipications of nothings, impossible speculations and hand-waving conspiracy theory attempted dismissals.

Tin-foil Facebook url:

https://www.facebook.com/tommy.wasserman/posts/10203893753780426

Yes, discussions in scholarly forums should be substantive, scholarly, good-humored and not overly-polemical. And I have tried to be faithful to that pattern. When I started my studies around 2011-2013, following the lead of Chris Pinto, I favored Sinaiticus authenticity, putting down the Sinaiticus non-authenticity idea even on yahoogroups forums. However, the facts on the ground caused a change. My goal here is to share the facts, so others can see where we are today on the Sinaiticus authenticity question.

With the modern scholars, it is hard to even get them to look at the evidences!

"Please, don't confuse me with the facts, I know that Sinaiticus is 4th century."

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

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
Sinaiticus Authenticity Research Team - SART
http://www.sinaiticus.net/

A special thanks to the BVDB (BibleVersionDiscussionBoard) forum for their occasional analysis with mini-substance and the accompanying ongoing railing attacks.

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

Sinaiticus Authenticity Research Team
http://www.sinaiticus.net/

Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/steven.avery.7568
Facebook - Sinaiticus
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sinaiticus/
Facebook - PureBible (url points here, and discussion)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pur...comment_id=1600185970073286&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}

Archived at:

[TC-Alternate-list] Sinaiticus early date refuted by linguistic studies of James Donaldson
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/messages/6013

Not sure where this goes

 

[Steven Avery]

And once again we find this is MORE evidence that Sinaiticus is 1800s.

BVDB
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...ell-when-avery-is-drunk-t6008-s10.html#p80255

Hi brandpluckt,

This is your fav topic, so let's look at it today.

Based on comments on the similarity of Codex Athous and Sinaiticus, by James Donaldson and Skeat and Milne, we can conjecture they would be given a 99% similarity pct.

"the Codex Athous provides a text, from which the Sinaiticus varies in small details but apparently not in substance"
Skeat and Milne, 1938, Scribes and correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, also quoted by Heide.

James Donaldson had similarly written in 1864:

To the Sinaitie 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 Sinaitie.

A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine: The apostolical fathers

books.google.com

Exactly what David Daniels has in his book.

Sidenote:
All two manuscript or edition comparisons have difficulties in assigning pcts.
There is no standard methodology. It is different in a triangular comparison.

And I showed the K. Martin Heide difficulties in understanding even the fundamental pct. concepts when he made this absurd ultra-circular claim in the paper you reference:

"Almost 5,000 of the 7,947 verses of the New Testament, as contained in the major text-critical editions in the last one-hundred-fifty years (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, Nestle-Aland), show no differences at all in the text. Can the stability of the New Testament text be defined more accurately?"

GIGO

Heide is writing about the stability of the New Testament text and he limits himself to Critical Text editions starting with Tischendorf editions?

Dumb.

==========

Ironically, even there, in is attempt to only consider Critical Text editions, Heide is totally wrong, since Tischendorf huge changes from the 7th to 8th editions, due to Sinaiticus.

Tischendorf ... in his eighth edition he altered the mature conclusions of his seventh in no less than 3.572 (1) instances, chiefly on account of the readings in his beloved Sinaitic guide.
(1) 1 Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s 8th Ed. of New Testament, (I) p. 286

Burgon and Miller, the Traditional Text

The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established

books.google.com

==========

Returning to Hermas.

We have Athous and Sinaiticus at about 99%
We have Sinaiticus and P38 and 91.2%/

That is a huge amount of variation in the P38-Sinaiticus comparison.

Compared to the supposedly independent edition of Athos in the 1850s which is compared to Sinaiticus supposedly 4th century text, which we can estimate at 99%.

That is incredible similarity showing direct connection.

This puts the 91.2% number totally on the side of non-authenticity.

"The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance"
James Anson Farrer - Literary forgeries (1907)- p. 060

You are welcome to try to come up with some counterpoint.
Wasserman had none years back.
And Tommy Wasserman never dealt with the Latinization linguist issues.