Barnabas after Donaldson - true Greek of Codex Hierosolymitanus from Bryennios compared to latinized Sinaiticus

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hermas and Barnabas projects - Athous compared to Sinaiticus New Finds - Latinized words from Donaldson in papyri and mss - bibliography
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...latinized-word-from-donaldson-in-papyri.2818/

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

Barnabas - true Greek of Codex Hierosolymitanus compared to latinized Sinaiticus

Codex Hierosolymitanus (also called the Bryennios manuscript or the Jerusalem Codex, often designated simply "H" in scholarly discourse) is an 11th-century Greek manuscript, written by an otherwise unknown scribe named Leo, who dated it 1056. Its designation of "Jerusalem" recalls its resting place in Jerusalem, at the library of the monastery of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Hierosolymitanus


Epistle of Barnabas

Ferdinand Rupert Prostmeier - discussion
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Epistle of Barnabas
Wikipedia

The 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus (S), discovered by Constantin von Tischendorf in 1859 and published by him in 1862, contains a complete text of the Epistle placed after the canonical New Testament and followed by the Shepherd of Hermas. The 11th-century Codex Hierosolymitanus (H), which also includes the Didache, the two Epistles of Clement and the longer version of the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, is another witness to the full text. It was discovered by Philotheos Bryennios at Constantinople in 1873 and published by him in 1875. Adolf Hilgenfeld used it for his 1877 edition of the Epistle of Barnabas. A family of 10 or 11 manuscripts dependent on the 11th-century Codex Vaticanus graecus 859 (G) contain chapters 5:7b−21:9 placed as a continuation of a truncated text of Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (1:1–9:2). An old Latin version (L), perhaps of no later than the end of the 4th century, that is preserved in a single 9th-century manuscript (St Petersburg, Q.v.I.39) gives the first 17 chapters (without the Two Ways section of chapters 18 to 21) This is a fairly literal rendering in general, but is sometimes significantly shorter than the Greek text. S and H generally agree on readings. G often agrees with L against S and H. A small papyrus fragment (PSI 757) of the third or fourth century has the first 6 verses of chapter 9, and there are a few fragments in Syriac of chapters 1, 19,20. The writings of Clement of Alexandria give a few brief quotations, as to a smaller extent do Origen, Didymus the Blind and Jerome.[3][4][5][6]

Why did Hilgenfeld choose H ?

The readings Latinized, what are they in H?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
=======================================

The Manuscripts of the "Letter of Barnabas"
Roger Pearse
https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/barnabas_letter.htm

Codex Hierosolymitanus / Codex Constantinopolitanus. A Greek minuscule written by Leo the Notary in 1056AD, and discovered by Bryennius in Constantinople in 1875 in the library of the Patriarch monastery of Jerusalem. The manuscript was in Jerusalem in 1967. The Ms. also contains 1 Clement, 2 Clement, the Didache, and the Long version of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch.

Codex Vaticanus Graecus 859. This descends from a manuscript in which Barnabas 5:7b-21:9 followed without a break on Polycarp 1:1 -9:2, the combination passing under the name of Polycarp. It also contains the letters of Ignatius.

R.A.KRAFT, An unnoticed papyrus fragment of Barnabas, Vigiliae Christianae 21 (1967) pp.150-163. Checked. Includes photograph and further references.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/publics/barn/Barn-Papyrus.html
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS: ITS QUOTATIONS AND THEIR SOURCES
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//publics/barn/barndiss01.htm

O.De GEBHARDT & A. HARNACK, Patrum apostolicorum opera I.2 (1878 2). Not checked -- details from Kraft.
http://books.google.com/books?id=88yvav5Uw-4C&pg=PR23

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

Codex Hierosolymitanus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Hierosolymitanus

Hierosolymitanus

Hilgenfeld 1877

Codex Vaticanus graecus 859


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

Epistle of Barnabas
https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/auteur/476/

Manuscript
https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/cote/35291/

Greek manuscripts
https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/oeuvre/5454/

=================================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Roger Pearse
1671495453442.png


1671496713731.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
11th-century Codex Vaticanus graecus 859 (G)

Does this have agreement in Sinaiticus?

Codex Vaticanus Graecus 859. This descends from a manuscript in which Barnabas 5:7b-21:9 followed without a break on Polycarp 1:1 -9:2, the combination passing under the name of Polycarp. It also contains the letters of Ignatius.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
How do Codex Hierosolymitanus and Codex Sinaiticus compare on the first five chapters, which were not published in Greek in 1840.

If Simonides did an 1843 Barnabas edition, then some of those manuscripts should show up.

If Simonides did not do an 1843 Barnabas, is Sinaiticus more Latinized that H?



Tsialas, Vasileios
Jay Curry Treat
Ulrich Schmid
Rhodes, James N. - (b. 1966)
Prostmeier, Ferdinand Rupert (b. 1957)
Paget, James Carleton - (b. 1966 -)
Nicklas, Prof. Dr. Tobias Nicklas, (b. 1967)
McGuckin, John Anthony (b. 1952)
Matter, Ann -
Andrew Louth
Kraus, Dr. Thomas J. -
Kraft, Robert Alan - (b. 1934)
Koch, Dr. Dietrich-alex -
Joosten, Jan (biblical scholar) - (b-1959)
Hvalvik, Reidar – (b. 1951)
Hughes, Kyle R. -
Facebook - Hindley, David C -
Facebook - Dooley, Tim - 1843 Barnabas translation -
Cotterell, Peter -
Wengst, Klaus – Wikipedia (b. 1942)
 
Last edited:

ebion

Member
Are there any suspicions of forgery on "Codex Hierosolymitanus"? Has it been definitively AMS C-14 dated?

The coincidence theorist in me bristles at GreekSinaiticus, SyriacSinaiaticus, and Hierosolymitanus, all appearing, complete, within a 40 year timeframe. And a world-wide bonanza of new bible translations immediately thereafter, by a committee of people that defended the authenticity of the new finds.

I note in passing that Tischedorf visited the Library in Constantinople in between his first visit to Ste. Catherines (when he "found" the first part of GreekSinaiticus) and the discovery not long after of Hierosolymitanus. He was left alone in the library...

(Re: https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...tury-corrector-of-s-csp-urls.2894/#post-12173
What do you mean by, speaking of H, " Its text of Barnabas is most closely related to the first hand of S and to Cl.A." Why in bold?)
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
First, I don't see any problem with Syriac Sinaiticus (Syriacus), you can see it is actually an old manuscript in its pictures, unlike Codex Sinaiticus, and it is a palimpsest and the provenance seems reasonable. It is worth checking, however.

Hierosolymitanus did have forgery accusations, the Didache was in the center.

Discovered: Lost Teaching of the Apostles - Vital for Today!
https://www.destinyimage.com/blog/d...covered-lost-teaching-of-the-apostles-didache

Nonetheless, during the first years after its publication, some scholars dismissed Bryennios’s find on the grounds that it was “a modern forgery.” It was almost as though a document (a) lost for nearly fifteen hundred years and (b) overlooked repeatedly by scholars cataloguing the library was not allowed to show up so unexpectedly. After a few years, however, the judgment of authenticity prevailed. (6)

6. Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. (Mahwah, NJ: The Newman Press, 2003), 5.

The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities (2003)
Aaron Milavec
https://books.google.com/books?id=17v6sT1l-aYC&pg=PA3
See p. 3-5

A recent book just uses Milovec:

An Ancient Blueprint for the Supernatural (2020)
By Dr. Dennis Clark, Dr. Jennifer Clark
https://books.google.com/books?id=8SzyDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT19

More planned, it is an interesting question.
 
Last edited:

ebion

Member
So there's nothing stronger than "some scholars dismissed"? So it hasn't been:
  • C-14 dated to the time period
  • scrutinized for the writing type
  • compared in detail against other versions of Hermes, Barnabas or the Clements?
For me, for an important sought-after early document like the Didache, lost for nearly fifteen hundred years, and overlooked repeatedly by scholars cataloguing the library to show up so unexpectedly, soon after Tischendorf was alone in its library, is too much.

Thanks - you summed it up for me with your quote from Donaldson:
This generation may have perfect confidence in Bryennius and Tischendorf. But circumstances might arise at a long subsequent period which might awaken doubts as to the genuineness of the manuscripts

So Donaldson back then has the same feeling I have now - clearly the period now is more than long enough! Which is a pity because I love the Didache, but feel that I can't use anything from H.

Is there any information on how the long version of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch in H compare with what was previously known? Is there anything "different" about the H version? Do you have a "position" or feeling on whether any of the short/medium/long recensions are spurious, or are they all?
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
(Re: https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...tury-corrector-of-s-csp-urls.2894/#post-12173
What do you mean by, speaking of H, " Its text of Barnabas is most closely related to the first hand of S and to Cl.A." Why in bold?)

There seemed to be a separation of Sinaiticus and H in the scholarship, until that quote. Since the Hierosolymitanus text was supposed to be an ancient Greek transmission and Sinaiticus has Latinization elements and was an 1800s production.

So I put it in bold basically to highlight some skepticism :).
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Do you have a "position" or feeling on whether any of the short/medium/long recensions are spurious, or are they all?

No Ignatius position at this time. :)
A lot of effort to even come to an informed opinion, and I have not really seen it as primary.

Granted it becomes more of an issue because of Hierosolymitanus.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
So there's nothing stronger than "some scholars dismissed"? So it hasn't been:
  • C-14 dated to the time period
  • scrutinized for the writing type
  • compared in detail against other versions of Hermes, Barnabas or the Clements?
For me, for an important sought-after early document like the Didache, lost for nearly fifteen hundred years, and overlooked repeatedly by scholars cataloguing the library to show up so unexpectedly, soon after Tischendorf was alone in its library, is too much.

Here is a possible support for authenticity.

The Didache (2019)
Paul Luckraft
https://prophecytoday.uk/study/resources/item/1457-the-didache.html

Although older fragments have been found since, this remains the only complete manuscript. Known as Codex Hierosolymitanus 54, it now resides in the library of the Greek Orthodox patriarchate in Jerusalem. In 1922 two Greek fragments were found in Egypt which were textually very close to that found in Istanbul, thus verifying its accuracy. In addition, a Coptic fragment from Cairo, dating back to the 5th Century, was published in 1924, and another nearly complete Gregorian version was found in Constantinople in 1923, though never published. The 1873 manuscript remains the most reliable and complete.
 

ebion

Member
There seemed to be a separation of Sinaiticus and H in the scholarship, until that quote. Since the Hierosolymitanus text was supposed to be an ancient Greek transmission and Sinaiticus has Latinization elements and was an 1800s production.

So I put it in bold basically to highlight some skepticism :).

So inching it a little closer to English for an amateur like myself:
"H's orthography of Barnabas is most closely related to the first writer of GreekSinaiticus, and also to Cl.A."

1. What's CI.A ?
2. You're implying that whoever wrote H also wrote the first part of S?
3. By "the first part of S" you mean the testaments part, before the Barnabas in S?
4. The Barnabas in S was Simondes - was it his hand or "just" his text?

Sorry, I'm new at this TextualSpeak - I'm trying...
 

ebion

Member
No Ignatius position at this time. :)
A lot of effort to even come to an informed opinion, and I have not really seen it as primary.

Oh good! that leaves me free to take any position I want, with virtually no effort :)
Here it is:

The Letters of Ignatius of Antioch are too much of a mess to be of any use​
to any body.​

If they were any use, I was going to ask the classic Tubingen/F.C. Bauer/Detering
question of: is there any evidence of the existence of the Paulines before Marcion?
I started a thread to encapsulate the answer, so I'll follow that up over there.

But over here in this thread,
Granted it becomes more of an issue because of Hierosolymitanus.
Exactly. I'm looking at the amount of effort that went into this story line:

1. No one would spend a 13 month long year traveling around the libraries of
Italy when the custodian of the Vatican library wants to write you poetry.

2. After a young Lutheran pastor gets private audiences with the Pope, he
is given access to the most prized document of the most secretive library in
the world, under a ex-(sic) Jesuit soon-to-be Cardinal who has a reputation
for keeping everything to himself. With the help of another Cardinal, no less.

3. After a 13 month year in and around the Vatican you go to the ends of the earth
to make the hugest find in ecclesiastical history, in one of the oldest and most
important monasteries of a church that hates Lutherans as much as the Catholics do.

4. On your way home to your wife, you stop off in Constantinople (having flunked
geography) to visit one of the next most restrictive libraries in the world,
and again are left alone in the library on the OK of yet another Patriarch,
of a church that also hates Lutherans as much as the Catholics do. Shortly
after which, the library makes the next hugest find in ecclesiastical history.

5. The 2 codices in the story are then said to be the basis for cabal of "scholars"
(Wescott/Hort/Shcaff) to claim that all of the world's bibles need replacing
immediately, even though one of the Codices was rejected by the TR's Erasmus,
and the other one comes in either lily-white or lemon-tea-yellow.

So the question naturally arises: what role does H play in all of this?
Clearly the tea and lemon juice years imply that the Greek Orthodox
hierarchy is cooperating fully, as well as the Patriarch of Jerusalem
Orthodox hierarchy, and the Pope and Vatican hierarchy, just like all they
did during the plandemic. So we must assume they would/are cooperating on H.

I love the Didache - it is truly the finest Early Church document after Matthew.
And thank-you for that reference - it's the best writeup of the Didache I've seen.
But because of its beautiful simplicity, it can't see it playing a role in this
affair - it can't be used for anything but primitive Christian simplicity.
(It's in my draft of an Ebionite Canon.) It also came out later (he didn't
notice a work that everyone has been looking for for 1900 years, at first)
so maybe it was a distraction tossed in to take the heat off the Simonides affair.

I can't see Barnabas playing a role either - Simonides turned the Sinaiatic one
into a real embarrassment - and having 2 is two much. It's not a document I like,
nor can see it would be any use - it would be immediately branded as anti-Semitic.

So were left with scrutinizing the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch. What role
could they play? Conveniently, they can say almost anything and not be caught
out because the field is such a mess. And the only relevant question that I can think of
that they would have a bearing on is the Tubingen/F.C. Bauer/Detering question,
as they might buttress a claim to show that Ignatius knew of the Pauline Epistles.

I'm exhausted just writing a summary - I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried!
I'm an amateur - this textual stuff is hard...

I'll follow up over there.

PS: I don't think 13-month years are only Hebrew - they could also be freemasonic.
Of course, if Loyala was a Marrano, then the lunar year would make sense :)
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
So inching it a little closer to English for an amateur like myself:
"H's orthography of Barnabas is most closely related to the first writer of Greek Sinaiticus, and also to Cl.A."

1. What's CI.A ?
2. You're implying that whoever wrote H also wrote the first part of S?
3. By "the first part of S" you mean the testaments part, before the Barnabas in S?
4. The Barnabas in S was Simondes - was it his hand or "just" his text?

Sorry, I'm new at this TextualSpeak - I'm trying...

H (Codex Hierosolymitanus) ... Its text of Barnabas is most closely related to the first hand of S and to Cl.A.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/publics/barn/barndidintro.htm#barnint
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...ntury-corrector-of-s-csp-urls.2894/post-12173

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

1. Cl.A is Clement of Alexandria (this is in the source I am quoting)

2. Nope. However, if H was a forgery by Bryennios (a big if), Sinaiticus would be a contributing source. There are not many scholars who can really look at these questions without getting trapped in presuppositions.

3. It said the first hand of S, meaning not a later corrector

4. Simonides likely did do the New Testament, and Barnabas, what is called Scribe A. Also historical and poetical books of the OT. If so, he was the first hand.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
4. On your way home to your wife, you stop off in Constantinople (having flunked
geography) to visit one of the next most restrictive libraries in the world,
and again are left alone in the library on the OK of yet another Patriarch,
of a church that also hates Lutherans as much as the Catholics do. Shortly
after which, the library makes the next hugest find in ecclesiastical history.
:)

Many of the Sinaiticus corrections had been made at Constantinople and Antigonus (Paris Island). They took over the manuscript from Simonides, even seems to have paid him some decent money. So they knew all about Sinaiticus, which may have influenced this being a stop for Tischendorf. Constantius was one of the main individuals involved, and others are mentioned here:
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-athos-manuscript-sinaiticus-up-to-1860.3290/

It is hard to say if they thought the manuscript was truly old.
 

ebion

Member
Here is a possible support for authenticity.

The Didache (2019)
Paul Luckraft
https://prophecytoday.uk/study/resources/item/1457-the-didache.html

Thanks for that link: it's the best summary I've seen of the Didache.

I didn't know about the Sinaiticus fraud until recently. I shunned Wescott and Hort and their spawn, but had no idea about the Tischendupe fraud. And I am stunned by the ease with which they are getting away with something so blatantly gargatuan.

I was a diehard Tyndale's Matthews' "Reply to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue" kind of guy, who knows how much blood was spilled to get the Tyndale bibles into our hands, and can easily handle the KJV with my corrections in mind, or with my list of corrections and replacements as a Commentary in a bible reader. Then I went to a Church of England service recently for the first time in years (I'm a congregation type, like Tyndale) and was stunned seeing NIVs in the pews. Even more stunning was that no one knew the difference, and even worse, no one cared.

Reading your possible support link, all I find there is another "After a few years, however, the judgment of authenticity prevailed. (6)" No it didn't prevail: the evil ones won by running out the clock, like with contact tracing and globalized passports and Sinaiaticus.

To answer my own question, none of these finds
have been:
  • C-14 dated to the time period
  • scrutinized for the writing type
  • established provenance
This whole fraud would collapse in 5 minutes if the British Library ordered AMS C-14 testing on their lilly-white and lemon-yellow stolen property. 50 mg. sample size. But like obedient concubines they say nothing, and do nothing.

And there is not a single church in the world demanding it be done or saying anything - they're too busy replacing all of their bibles with NIVs, or getting their booster shotz).

Thank-you very much for your site, your massive body of the highest qualirt work and your insight, and I hope that you can tolerate my heretical Jamesian/Ebionite viewpoint.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Thank-you very much for your site, your massive body of the highest qualirt work and your insight, and I hope that you can tolerate my heretical Jamesian/Ebionite viewpoint.

Appreciated. No problem with heretical approaches here, for the most part. Peter Cresswell did some good work on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. There is a forum full of skeptics and mythicists that give some of the best feedback. Your questions have been quite interesting.
 
Last edited:
Top