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

Steven Avery

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 [URL="https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.101

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

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!