Maximo in Hermas Visions II:3,4 - from Tischendorf to James Donaldson to David Daniels

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hermas and Bodmer. Another Look at the Text of Vision 1.3.4, 2.3.1, and 3.2.1 in P. Bodm. XXXVIII
Joseph Verheyden

https://kuleuven.limo.libis.be/disc...k&tab=LIRIAS&query=any,contains,lirias1555449
[KU Leuven IDlaunch]
Is Part Of
Adamantius ; 2015; Vol. 21; iss. 21; pp. 144 - 154

The essay looks into three instances in the Visions (V) in the Shepherd of Hermas (SH) where P.Bodm. XVIII (B) offers a reading that is not found elsewhere in the Greek textual tradition. These are: V 1.3.4, 2.3.1, and 3,2.1. In the last instance, B agrees with the two Latin versions (L1 and L2) in offering a longer text that is perhaps not really necessary, but that clarifies the context and is well in the style of SH, hence may well be original. The second instance is more complex. The text of B makes no sense as it is, but if one accepts the correction proposed by Carlini, one may again have rediscovered an original reading that was obscured in the rest of the tradition. More complicated still is the case of V 1.3.4, for which it is once more argued that if the original can be recovered at all, B has the better chances to get at it.
Publisher

ISSN: 1126-6244
WOSID: WOS:000456027100009
SCOPUSID: 2-s2.0-84974723613
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
1669955264600.png

about 828 a.d. in the Stichometry of Nicephorus. As it is the only book expressly quoted by Hermas, it is not unlikely that he used it repeatedly in the Shepherd. About Maximus, the doubleminded (Mand xi. 4), we have no further information.
Charles Taylor
https://books.google.com/books?id=-Rg0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA70


About Visions - another reason it is not Christian and the original, the Maximus error
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22212.0
and in Book I:2:3 he apparently instructs Maximus to deny the faith if it seems good to him due to oncoming persecution....
it contains heretical statements, especially the instruction to Maximus to apostatize; it has to be treated as suspect.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jallabert
https://books.google.com/books?id=sLJWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA118

Summarize him on Maximo
Find the German of Latin talking of the 14th and 15th century
Confirm if γραφάς does not apply? (graphes) confused somewhere scripture according to structure - only apply to Athos?

changed to another imaginary woman Rada - actually it was Romœ - Rome
the name of Rada given in the Palatine text to the woman whom Hermas meets on the banks of the Tiber.
See Post #28

search Μαξίμω-magna maximo tribulatio
look at Palatine mss and decide if Greek would translate to that Latin
look at English about heresy charge


1671368905692.png


Si nous en croyons M. Tischendorf, ce qui doit porter le coup de grâce à l’opinion qui soutiendrait que le manuscrit de M. Simonidès est une copie et non une traduction de l’œuvre grecque d’Hermas, ce sont les deux expressions (Greek-γραφάς) et (Greek-Μαξίμω-Maximo) Voilà, je l’avoue, deux preuves favorables au sentiment qu’il a embrassé, et qui même paraissent décisives. Le sont-elles? c’est ce qu’il faut examiner sans parti pris. Le mot (Greek-γραφάς) la place qu’il occupe a été mis probablement pour (Greek- oixoooués) ou quelque terme semblable ; or, une pareille substitution ne saurait venir que de ce qu’un traducteur ignorant a pris le mot structuras pour scripturas ou s’est servi,

If we are to believe M. Tischendorf, which must deal the deathblow to the opinion which would maintain that the manuscript of M. Simonidès is a copy and not a translation of the Greek work of Hermas, these are the two expressions (Greek) and (Greek-Maximo) Here, I confess, are two proofs favorable to the sentiment he embraced, and which even seem decisive. Are they? this is what must be examined without bias. The word (Greek-γραφάς) the place it occupies was probably put for (Greek- oixoooués) or some similar term; now, such a substitution could only come from the fact that an ignorant translator took the word structuras for scripturas or used,

1671368973162.png


pour son travail, d’un manuscrit où l’on avait commis une semblable méprise. De même le mot (Greek-Maximus) peut venir de ce que l’on aura lu ou entendu lire en latin, si nous suivons le manuscrit palatin,

dicis autem Maximo : Ecce tribulalio, au lieu de dicis autem : Maxima ecce tribulalio.

Mais ne peut-il pas y avoir eu dans ces deux endroits une lacune qui ait arrêté tout à coup le copiste et l’ait forcé, dans sa transcription grecque, à recourir pour quelques passages, cl notamment pour les deux mots en question, au texte latin le plus généralement suivi ? On voit que les lacunes ne fout pas plus défaut dans le texte de Leipzig que dans tous les manuscrits de l’antiquité que l’on a découverts jusqu’à ce jour. On y en trouve un grand nombre qui ne sont pas dans le

for his work, of a manuscript in which such a mistake had been made. Similarly the word (Greek-Maximus) can come from what we have read or heard read in Latin, if we follow the Palatine manuscript,

dicis autem Maximo: Ecce tribulalio, instead of dicis autem: Maxima ecce tribulalio.

But could there not have been in these two places a gap which suddenly stopped the copyist and forced him, in his Greek transcription, to have recourse for some passages, and in particular for the two words in question, to the most generally followed Latin text? We see that there are no more gaps in the Leipzig text than in all the manuscripts of antiquity that have been discovered up to the present day. There are a large number of them who are not in the

1671369037745.png

latin. Comment pourrait-il en être ainsi, si le texte grec n’etait qu’une traduction? et puis qui pourrait nous affirmer qu’un maître copiste, après avoir revu l’œuvre d’un disciple inhabile, n’aurait pas, corrigeant une expression défectueuse, écrit en marge, en sous-entendant menda, le mot maxima qui aurait été pris plus tard pour rnaximo et inséré dans le texte en caractères grecs. Cette supposition pourrait bien ne pas être entièrement chimérique. Il en a été ainsi, à mon avis, pour le nom de Rada donné dans le texte palatin à la femme qu'Hermas rencontre sur les bords du Tibre. Il y avait probablement dans la traduction : Qui me enulrivit veudidit me in urbe Roma cuidam feminœ. Un maître trouvant cette traduction défectueuse, car l’ancien texte porte : Qui

Latin. How could it be so, if the Greek text was only a translation? and then who could tell us that a master copyist, after reviewing the work of an inept disciple, would not have, correcting a defective expression, written in the margin, implying menda, the word maxima which would have been later taken for rnaximo and inserted into the text in Greek characters. This assumption may well not be entirely chimerical. It was so, in my opinion, for the name of Rada given in the Palatine text to the woman whom Hermas meets on the banks of the Tiber. There was probably in the translation: Qui me enulrivit veudidit me in urbe Roma cuidam feminoe. A master finding this translation defective, because the old text bears: Qui
1671369083252.png

enutriverat me, vendidit quamdam puellam Romœ, aura mis en marge rade pour intimer l’ordre d’effacer; et ce mot, introduit dans le texte, sera devenu, à l’aide d’une légère transformation, le nom d’une femme qui, croira-t-on probablement, n’a jamais été qu’une fiction par laquelle l’auteur a voulu entrer en matière et frapper le lecteur dès le début. D'ailleurs, est-il bien sûr qu’il n’y ait pas eu à l’origine (Greek); et (Greek-Maximo). Ces deux mots ne dénaturent nullement le sens des endroits où ils se trouvent; au contraire, le second me parait nécessaire, ou du moins très-utile, pour expliquer le contexte. Voici le sens du passage où il a été écrit : L’ange fait des recommandations à Hermas; il l’exhorte à l’indulgence envers sa femme et ses enfants coupa-

enutriverat me, vendidit quamdam puellam Romœ, will have put on the sidelines to give the order to erase; and this word, introduced into the text, will have become, with the help of a slight transformation, the name of a woman who, it will probably be believed, has never been anything but a fiction by which the author wanted to get into the subject and hit the reader right from the start. Besides, is it of course that there was not originally (Greek); and (Greek-Maximo). These two words in no way distort the meaning of the places where they are; on the contrary, the second appears to me necessary, or at least very useful, to explain the context. Here is the meaning of the passage where it was written: The angel makes recommendations to Hermas; he urges him to be indulgent towards his wife and his severed children.

1671369116319.png

bles; mais en même temps il lui dit que sa lâche indulgence pour leurs fautes l’a rendu coupable envers Dieu. Cependant, ajoute-t-il, ton innocence et la simplicité t'ont fait pardonner; il en arrivera de même à tous ceux qui t'inniteront ; heureux ceux qui pratiquent la justice! Enfin, il ajoute suivant l’ancienne version latine

« Dices autem : Ecce magna tribulatio venit. Si tibi videtur, iterum nega, »

d’après le texte palatin récemment corrigé :

« Dicis autem Maximo: Ecce tribulatio supervenit. Si placuerit tibi, iterurn negaris ; »

et, au rapport de l’édition de Leipzig,»

"(Greek)."

J’avoue que ces trois phrases me paraissent également énigmatiques; mais j’aime encore mieux la troisième qui en substituant un mot me donne un

guilty; but at the same time he tells him that his cowardly indulgence for their faults has made him guilty towards God. However, he adds, your innocence and simplicity have made you forgive; the same will happen to all those who will initiate you; happy those who practice justice! Finally, he adds following the old Latin version

“Dices autem: Ecce magna tribulatio venit. Si tibi videtur, iterum nega,”

according to the recently corrected Palatine text:

“Dicis autem Maximo: Ecce tribulatio supervenit. If placuerit tibi, iterurn negaris; »

and, to the report of the Leipzig edition,» "(Greek)." I admit that these three sentences seem equally enigmatic to me; but I like the third one even better which, by substituting a word, gives me a
1671369157437.png

sens tel que celui-ci:

«Tu diras à Maxime: La persécution est imminente, il dépend de toi de l’éviter de nouveau. » Dans ce cas, je comprendrai que Maxime pouvait être un évêque qui avait échappé aux horreurs de la première persécution et qui devait éviter aussi celles de la deuxième, s’il suivait les conseils transmis à Hermas dans ses visions. Quant aux deux phrases précédentes, elles n’ont aucun sens; et, en supposant qu’un copiste ou un correcteur eut trouvé dans le texte grec qu’on l’aurait chargé de transcrire ou de revoir, une phrase aussi insignifiante que ces deux phrases latines, je ne serais pas étonné que sciemment, et de plein gré, il eût ajouté ce (Greek-Maximo) pour donner un sens à son texte. C’est ce qui arrivait souvent dans l’antiquité et au

“You will tell Maxime: Persecution is imminent, it is up to you to avoid it again. In this case, I will understand that Maxime could be a bishop who had escaped the horrors of the first persecution and who would also have to avoid those of the second, if he followed the advice given to Hermas in his visions. As for the two preceding sentences, they make no sense; and, supposing that a copyist or a proofreader had found in the Greek text which he had been commissioned to transcribe or revise, a sentence as insignificant as these two Latin sentences, I should not be surprised that knowingly, and willingly, he would have added this (Greek-Maximo) to give meaning to his text. This often happened in antiquity and in the

1671369211314.png

moyen âge. Il s’était glissé mille erreurs dans les manuscrits par la faute de ceux qui dictaient ou qui corrigeaient et par celle des copistes euxmêmes. Les premiers articulaient mal en prononçant, prenaient une lettre pour une autre, oubliaient çà et là quelques mots ou quelques lettres, ou bien par ignorance faisaient passer dans le texte ce qui était en note à la marge. Les seconds étaient quelquefois préoccupés pendant que l’on dictait, ne prêtaient pas une oreille assez attentive, et, par suite, omettaient, ajoutaient, modifiaient, changeaient de place à leur gré, les lettres, les mots, les phrases, et parfois même des périodes entières, n'établissant aucune distinction, n’observant aucune ponctuation, introduisant enfin toutes les modifications que pou-

Middle Ages. A thousand errors had slipped into the manuscripts through the fault of those who dictated or corrected and through that of the copyists themselves. The former articulated badly in pronunciation, took one letter for another, forgot a few words or letters here and there, or out of ignorance passed into the text what was in a note in the margin. The latter were sometimes preoccupied while dictating, did not listen attentively enough, and consequently omitted, added, modified, changed places at will, letters, words, sentences, and sometimes even entire periods, establishing no distinction, observing no punctuation, finally introducing all the modifications

1671369276414.png

vaient leur inspirer le caprice ou des usages bizarres. Je ne parle ni de l’œuvre des faussaires, qui souvent a transforme et rendu méconnaissables les écrits importants, ni du travail des critiques qui plus d’une fois a gaté les manuscrits en voulant les corriger.

Enfin, je me demande comment il aurait pu se faire qu’au quatorzième ou au quinzième siècle, temps où, au sentiment de M. Tischendorf, doit avoir été faite celte version du latin en grec, on n’eût pas trouvé un seul exemplaire grec de ce livre qui avait eu tant d'éclat pendant les cinq premiers siècles de l’Eglise et dont on devait posséder encore en Orient de nombreux exemplaires. Je sais que le décret du pape Gélase dut porter un coup fatal à sa propagation et arrêter, ou du moins ralentir

will inspire them with whims or bizarre customs. I am not talking about the work of forgers, who often transformed important writings and made them unrecognizable, nor of the work of critics who more than once spoiled the manuscripts by wanting to correct them.

Finally, I wonder how it could have happened that in the fourteenth or fifteenth century, a time when, in the opinion of M. Tischendorf, this version of the Latin into Greek must have been made, not a single copy had been found. Greek version of this book which had had so much brilliance during the first five centuries of the Church and of which many copies were still to be possessed in the East. I know that the decree of Pope Gelasius must have dealt a fatal blow to its spread and stopped, or at least slowed down

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


1671404743831.png


la circulation de ses copies, mais comme ce décret ne portait que sur la canonicité et non sur l'authenticité ou la valeur de l’ouvrage, rien ne peut nous faire supposer qu'il ait été violemment supprimé. On peut croire que, des ce moment, il ne fut (sut) plus lu publiquement dans les églises orientales, mais rien n'empeche d'admettre que les anciennes copies ont été religieusement conservées, et que les fidèles ont continué, quoique plus rarement, à le transcrire pour leur édification personnelle. Dès lors comment se ferait-il qu'au moyen âge déjà il ne s’en fût plus trouvé d’exemplaire? Je suis persuadé, pour ma part, qu’il y en avait et même qu’il y en a encore dans les bibliothèques importantes de l'Orient. Dans celle hy-

the circulation of its copies, but as this decree related only to the canonicity and not to the authenticity or the value of the work, nothing can make us suppose that it was violently suppressed. One can believe that, from that moment, it was (know) no longer read publicly in the Eastern churches, but nothing prevents us from admitting that the old copies were religiously preserved, and that the faithful continued, although more rarely , to transcribe it for their personal edification. So how could it be that in the Middle Ages there was no longer a copy to be found? I am convinced, for my part, that there were and even still are in the important libraries of the East. In that hy-
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
skip a bit p. 122

1671405669260.png

On ine dira peut-être que je n’ai prouvé jusqu’ici que par supposition. Je l’accorde ; mais qu’a fait de plus M. Tischcndorf dans sa dissertation? Si nous en exceptons les fautes de grammaire qu’il a relevées avec beaucoup de soin et non sans quelque mérite, tout le reste n’est qu’hypothèse. Et, il faut bien qu’on l’avoue, il ne pouvait pas mieux faire. Il est des circonstances où la critique en est réduite à celte seule espèce d’argument, et c’est ici le cas.

It will perhaps be said that I have so far proved only by supposition. I grant it; but what else did M. Tischendorf do in his dissertation? If we except the errors of grammar which he pointed out with great care and not without some merit, all the rest is only hypothesis. And, we have to admit, he couldn't have done better. There are circumstances in which criticism is reduced to this type of argument alone, and this is the case here.

skip to bottom of p. 123


1671406149989.png



1671406183212.png

Telle est ma conclusion. Le manuscrit apporté de l’Athos par M. Simonidès est la copie, et non la traduction de l’ouvrage d’Hermas, disciple de saint Paul, œuvre très-importante pour constater l’état où se trouvaient, au premier siècle, les questions les plus intéressantes du dogme, de la morale et de la discipline; un témoin qui vient nous apprendre le degré de confiance que nous devons accorder aux documents donnés jusqu’ici par la traduction latine. Nous ne saurions nous empêcher de faire bon accueil au nouveau venu, et de le ranger parmi les Pères grecs, dont on possède le texte primitif, sauf à nous réserver le droit de le chasser d’une place dont il serait indigne, si nous venions un jour à découvrir qu’il ne fut jamais qu’un geai paré des plumes volées au paon.

This is my conclusion. The manuscript brought from Athos by M. Simonidès is the copy, and not the translation, of the work of Hermas, a disciple of Saint Paul, a very important work for ascertaining the state in which, in the first century, the the most interesting questions of dogma, morals and discipline; a witness who comes to teach us the degree of confidence that we must grant to the documents given so far by the Latin translation. We could not prevent ourselves from giving a good welcome to the newcomer, and from ranking him among the Greek Fathers, of whom we have the primitive text, except to reserve the right to drive him from a place of which he would be unworthy, if we came one day to discover that he was never anything but a jay adorned with the feathers stolen from the peacock.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
James Asch on Cooper on Donaldson late forms
“The late origin of the Greek is indicated by the occurrence of a great number of words unknown to the classical period, but common in later or modern Greek. Such are Βουνος, συμβιοσ (as wife), με (for μετα), πρωτοκαθεδριεις, ισχυροποιω κατεπιθυμω, ασυγκρασια, καταχυμα, εξακριβαζομαι, and such like. The lateness of the Greek appears also from late forms; such as αγαθωτατης, μεθισταναι, οιδας, αφιουσι (αφινουσιν in Sim. Greek), καπεκοπταν, ενεσκιρωμενοι, επεδιδουν, ετιθουν, beside ετιθεσαν, εσκαν, λημψη, ελπιδαν, τιθω, επεριψας and ηνοιξας, ειπασα, χειραν, απλοτηταν, σαρκαν, συνιω, συνιει; and some modern Greek forms, such as κραταουσα for κρατουσα, have been corrected by the writer of the manuscript. The lateness of the Greek appears also in the absence of the optative and the frequent use of ινα after ερωταν, αξιω, αιτουμαι, εντελλομαι, αξιος, &c., generally with the subjunctive, never with the optative. We also find εαν joined with the indicative. Εις is continually used for εν, as εχουσιν τοτον εις τον πυργον. We have also παρα after comparatives, and peculiar constructions, as περιχαρης του ιδειν, σπουδαιος εις το γνοναι, απεγνωρισθαι απο. And we have a neuter plural joined with a plural verb, κτηνη ερχονται. Most, if not all, of these peculiarities now mentioned, may be found in Hellenistic writings, especially the New Testament; and some of them maybe paralleled even in classical writers. But if we consider that the portion which has now been examined is small, and that every page is filled with these peculiarities, the only conclusion to which we can come is, that the Greek is not the Greek of the at least first five centuries of the Christian era. There is no document written within that period which has half so many neo-Hellenic forms, taken page by page, as this Greek of the Pastor of Hermas.”

Cooper, Bill (2016-04-08). The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus (Kindle Locations 898-907). Kindle Edition.

======================================
Bill Cooper on Donaldson

776
But what exactly is it about the
Shepherd ofHermas’ Greek text in Sinaiticus
that betrays the fact that it is a modern
production? Surely, Greek is Greek, and it
should be impossible to tell whether a text
originated in ancient times or in modern?
But actually, it is very easy to tell. James
Donaldson explains the technicalities for
us:
“The late origin of the Greek text [of
the Codex Sinaiticus Hermas] is indicated
by the occurrence of a great number of
words unknown to the classical period, but
common in later or modern Greek.... The
lateness of the Greek appears also in late
forms... and some modern Greek forms...
have been corrected by the writer of the
manuscript. The lateness of the Greek
appears also in the absence of the optative
and the frequent use of iva... generally with
the subjunctive, never with the optative....
But if we consider that the portion which
has now been examined is small, and
that every page [of the Sinaiticus Hermas]
is filled with these peculiarities, the only
conclusion to which we can come is, that
the Greek is not the Greek of the at least
first five centuries of the Christian era.
There is no document written within that
period which has half so many neo-Hellenic
forms, taken page by page, as this Greek of
the Pastor ofHermas.”3
Donaldson goes on to say:

"The peculiarities which point out a
Latin origin are the following: There are,
first, a number of Latin words where you
would naturally expect Greek.... Then there
is a considerable number of passages [of the
Hermas] preserved to us in Greek by Origen
and other writers. The Sinaitic Greek
differs often from this Greek, and agrees
with the Latin translation, especially the
Palatine. There is every, especially internal,
probability that the Greek of the ancient
writers is nearer the original than the
Sinaitic.”4
Now Donaldson was saying no
more about the Sinaiticus Hermas than
Tischendorf had said about the Leipzig.
Yet he was to be pilloried for saying it.
The way Donaldson’s analysis was received,
given the times in which he gave it, is not
very surprising. Preparation for the Revised
Version was well under way, and Sinaiticus
was being trumpeted all around the world
as the original text of the Bible; Higher
Criticism was riding the crest of a very large
wave, and Tischendorf’s honest bungling
was about to bring it all crashing down
around the Vatican’s ears. They just didn’t
need at that moment in time Donaldson’s
insightful analysis, so out came the knives
of assassination in the public press. Notice
that no competent linguist ever challenged
his analysis. No academic. No scholar of
any note. It was left instead to others of
lesser rank whom academe could distance
itself from should the truth ever come out.
The Saturday Review was commendably
prompt in publicly disparaging Donaldson,
and here’s how they did it. The ‘review,’ of
course, is anonymous:
"And here we must say that Dr
Donaldson seems to us to have lost his
way in meddling with matters beyond
the scope of his ordinary studies.... It
is really provoking to see a clever and,
in his province, a learned man, pass
such a summary judgment as this on a
subject to which every line Dr Donaldson
writes about it serves to show that he
has never paid adequate attention. In
Greek manuscripts, as in Latin, and even
in English, though in them not to the
same extent, there exist from the fourth
century downwards certain peculiarities in
the style of writing which are described
and illustrated in well-known text-books
on palaeography and biblical criticism...
whereby the experienced eye may tell at
a glance the true date of a venerable
book.... Tried by these tests, the Sinaitic
manuscript could not be referred to a lower
period than that fixed by Tischendorf,
though it is probably a little junior to its
famous partner in the Vatican. Of course
a document of this kind may be made
by craft and skill to simulate an antiquity
which does not belong to it, just as a
bank-note may be successfully forged; but
suspicions of such a kind, when they arise,
can be cleared up one way or another to
a moral certainty by a close examination
of the internal character of its contents, by
scrutinizing the nature of its texts and the
congruity of the readings it exhibits with
what we know from other sources that they
ought to be."5

But obeying the same rules of
investigation as the ‘review’ commends is
precisely what Donaldson had done. And
having done it, he was led to the inexorable
conclusion that the Hermas embedded
within the pages of Codex Sinaiticus was
a modern production. It is interesting
indeed that our anonymous reviewer never
once demonstrates with an example where
Donaldson was at fault. There is vitriol,
sarcasm and spite aplenty, but no science,
no analysis and no positive rebuttal. In
other words, the 'review' is a worthless

814
libel against one of the most industrious
scholars of his age.
But what exactly was the "scope of
his ordinary studies” that so limited the
ignorant Donaldson in the eyes of our
anonymous reviewer? To begin with, such
was the accumulation of his knowledge in
the field of the Greek language, ancient and
modern, that King Edward VII conferred a
knighthood on him in 1907. Forty years
earlier, he had been elected a Fellow of
the Royal Society of Scotland. In 1881 he
became Professor of Humanity at Aberdeen
University, and in 1890 Principal of St
Andrews. Apart from his earned doctorate,
he was awarded two honorary doctorates
by Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities. He
was the author of: A Modem Greek Grammar
for the Use of Classical Students, 1853;
Lyra Graeca, Specimens of Greek Lyric Poetry
from Callinus to Alexandros Soutsos, 18 54;
A Critical History of Christian Literature
and Christian Doctrine from the Death of
the Apostles to the Nicene Council, issued
in three volumes between 1864-1866; He
collaborated on the writing and editing
of The Ante-Nicene Christian Library,
published in twenty-four volumes between
1867-72; The Apostolical Fathers, of 1874,
in which he offered his analysis of the
Shepherd ofHermas; Lectures on the History
of Education in Prussia and England, also in
1874; Expiatory and Substitutory Sacrifices
of the Greeks, 1875; The Westminster
Confession of Faith and the Thirty-Nine
Articles of the Church of England, 1905; and
finally, Woman, her position and influence
in ancient Greece and Rome, published
in 1907. Add to this list, books in
German and Latin, and I don’t know how
many pamphlets, articles, lectures, talks
and debates that he must have engaged
in over the years. Moreover, he merited
two biographical entries, one in the New
International Encyclopaedia, published in
New York in 1905, a sure token of his
international reputation, and another in
the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1911. I
doubt that our anonymous reviewer could
have boasted as much.
All in all, these are mightily impressive
antecedents, and given the subject matter
of his several published academic books on
both ancient and modern Greek, I’d say that
what he said about the Sinaiticus Hermas
fell well within the "scope of his ordinary
studies,” our reviewer’s attempts to belittle
him notwithstanding. Intellectually and as
a scholar he ranked head and shoulders
above the likes of Tischendorf and the
critics. It is also clear that the writer of
our libellous review was somewhat his
inferior in the intellectual realm, which is
why he wisely abstained from any technical
critique of Donaldson’s observations on the
Hermas. He had the perfect opportunity to
bring him down by demonstrating just one
fault, but he could not take it. But to prepare
the ground for his belittling of his subject,
in the review’s opening passage, he says
this:
"Now this author’s style and
designation, ‘James Donaldson, LL.D.,’
conveys to our mind no information
whatever. He is probably a layman, and that
is all we can gather so far.”6
Such a disgraceful put-down says a lot
more about Donaldson’s critics than about
him, of course. But so much for that. As
for Tischendorf, there was only one thing
that he could now do to save the Jesuit
agenda as well as his own career, and
that was to back-pedal quickly.7 It was a
truly painful ordeal for such a vainglorious
man as he, but he now had to tell the
world that he had got it completely wrong
about Simonides’ Hermae Pastor of 1856,
and that it was, after all, a very ancient
Greek text, perhaps even the original -
in spite of its very modern characteristics
and embarrassingly numerous medieval
Latinisms. In so many words, he had to
appeal to the ‘obvious’ antiquity of Codex
Sinaiticus as the reason for re-dating the
Hermae Pastor of Leipzig. If it was found
in Sinaiticus, then it could not be modern,
even though its grammar, syntax and
vocabulary together shouted out the fact
that it was written in modern and not
in ancient Greek. It was one of the most
audacious acts of dishonesty and sleight
of hand ever perpetrated on the academic
world, and the real wonder is that he was
allowed to get away with it. But instead
of condemning his dishonesty, almost the
entire academic world closed its ranks
about him and agreed with him. There was
too much at stake for it to do otherwise.
A great deal was riding upon the
alleged antiquity of Codex Sinaiticus,
and Simonides’ Shepherd of Hermas was
threatening to undo years - centuries!
- of hard work and preparation. No
wonder they’d soon be out to get him.
Happily for the critics, Tischendorf’s back-
pedalling had been published in Latin, in
a scholarly German tome that was itself
obscure enough not to have been noticed
by any mischievous journalist, and so the
deception was barely noticed, especially by
the man in the street, the real target here.
But it was, and remains, a gross deception
nonetheless. Tischendorf had been correct
in every point when he critiqued the
Leipzig Hermas, yet now he was forced to
deny everything that he had so carefully
said about it. He literally turned all the
evidence for modern production on its
head and resorted to a colossal lie, namely
that the Greek text of the Hermas which
is embedded in both Codex Sinaiticus and
Lipsiensis, is the original Greek text of that
work, and, as far as the world is concerned,
that is the end of the matter.
Postscript: Donaldson on Hermas

Donaldson’s appraisal of the form
of Greek in which the Codex Sinaiticus
Hermas is written, is foundational to an
accurate understanding of the recent origin
of the Codex. Omitting only his long,
historico-theological preamble concerning
the Hermas, that appraisal is given here in

857
full. It is its technical excellence which is
our main interest here. Any critic is free to
challenge it, and to demonstrate any fault
at all in Donaldson’s accuracy or logic. It
will be a brave man who tries. In nigh 150
years or so, no one has yet offered to do it.
A Critical History of Christian

SKIP

880
Βουνος, συμβιοσ (as wife), με (for μετα),
πρωτοκαθεδριεις, ισχυροποιώ κατεπιθυμω,
ασυγκρασια, καταχυμα, εξακριβαζομαί, and
such like. The lateness of the Greek appears
also from late forms; such as αγαθωτατης,
μεθισταναι, οιδας, αφιουσι (αφινουσιν in
Sim. Greek), καπεκοπταν, ενεσκφωμενοι,
επεδιδουν, ετιθουν, beside ετιθεσαν, εσκαν,
λημψη, ελπίδαν, τιθω, επεριψας and ηνοιξας,
ειπασα, χειραν, απλότηταν, σαρκαν, συνιω,
συνιει; and some modern Greek forms,
such as κραταουσα for κρατούσα, have been
corrected by the writer of the manuscript.
The lateness of the Greek appears also
in the absence of the optative and the
frequent use of iva after έρωταν, αξιω,
αιτουμαι, εντέλλομαι, άξιος, &c., generally
with the subjunctive, never with the
optative. We also find εαν joined with the
indicative. Εις is continually used for εν,
as εχουσιν τοτον εις τον πύργον. We have
also παρα after comparatives, and peculiar
constructions, as περιχαρής του ιδειν,
σπουδαίος εις το γνοναι, απεγνωρισθαι απο.
And we have a neuter plural joined with a
plural verb, κτηνη έρχονται. Most, if not all,
of these peculiarities now mentioned, may
be found in Hellenistic writings, especially

907
The peculiarities which point out a
Latin origin are the following:
There are, first, a number of Latin
words where you would naturally expect
Greek. Such are συμφελλιον, κερβικαριον,
λεντιον, καρπασινον.
Then there occurs this passage, ερεις
δε Μαξιμω ιδου θλιψις ερχεται. The common
Latin translation is: ‘Dices autem; ecce
magna tribulatio venit.’ Now here there
is no trace of the ‘Μαξιμω.’ But we find
it in the Palatine, ‘Dicis autem maximo:
ecce tribulatio,’ which Dressel changes into
‘Dicis autem; maxima ecce tribulatio.’ The
Palatine accounts well for the origin of
Μαξιμω in the Sinaitic Greek, but it is
not possible to account for the common
‘magna,’ if Μαξιμω had been originally in
the Greek.
Footnotes to Chapter Four
1. Anger & Dindorf (eds.). Hermae
Pastor. Graece primum ediderunt et
interpretationem veteram Latinem ex
codicibus emendatam addiderunt Rudolphus
Anger et Guilielmus Dindorf. Pars prior quae
textum Graecum continet. 1856. Lipsiae
[Leipzig].

927
2. Dressel, Patrum Apostolicorum
Opera. Lips. [Leipzig]. 1857, pp. xxxix-lv.
3. Donaldson, The Apostolical Fathers.
1874. pp. 389-390.
4. Ibid., p. 390.
5. The Saturday Review. 2nd January
1875. p. 23.
6. Ibid., p. 22. The disparaging aside
that “he is probably a layman" is meant
to convey the notion that because he is a
layman he is therefore not qualified to hold
an opinion on the subject. It’s something
that normally only an arrogant cleric
would say, but the finger of suspicion for
this review points firmly to William Aldis
Wright
, who at this very time was busy
helping to prepare the Revised Version of
1881. His ardent support of the scheme of

foisting a Vatican-inspired Bible onto the
world in place of the Received Text was in
danger of being scuppered by Donaldson,
and he knew it. Hence the ‘review/ though
he had to remain anonymous.
7. It was in the Preface, Prologue
and Appendix of Dressel's second edition
of Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, published
in 1867
, that Tischendorf did his back-
pedalling. But note the gem of double-
reasoning which Tischendorf offers having
given two directly opposite analyses of
Hermas: "My opposite opinion is proved
correct....”
That is how to wriggle off a hook.
Beautiful.

8. Particularly informative on this
Latin issue is: Turner, Cuthbert H. ‘The
Shepherd of Hermas and the Problem of its
Text.’ Journal of Theological Studies. April
1920. os-XXI (2). pp. 193-209.

943
Chapter Five: Barnabas
Also Betrays Sinaiticus’
Date of Composition
Much of what has been said about The
Shepherd of Hermas lending a recent date
to the manufacture of Codex Sinaiticus, can
be said with equal force concerning the
The Greek of the first four
chapters and a half.... contains many of
the conjectural emendations previously
proposed by scholars.”
[This shows that this
version of Barnabas was written under the
influence of a recent scholarship - from
around the 17th-19th centuries, in other

Compare next section to Verheyden
words. But Donaldson continues:] "The
Greek of the first four chapters exhibits
some peculiar phenomena. Several words
of unusual formation such as ακριβευεσθαι,
ανθρωποποιητος, and παρεισδυσις, are found
nowhere else. One word εκσφενδοναν,
occurring in c.2, is found in Suidas, without
any meaning attached to it except in one
MS., notorious for additions of its own. It

967
tell the difference between classical and
modern Greek, and he therefore could not
recognise these anomalies although they
were staring him in the face. But Donaldson
also mentions, almost as an aside, a not-
so-curious circumstance concerning this
medieval-to-modern version of Barnabas,
and that is the fact that two of its Latin
manuscripts were earlier being circulated
by certain Jesuits, Turranius ( Turrianus ) and Andreas
Schottus.3
Something was being prepared.
The Jesuits, along with the Vatican whom
they serve, have always been anxious to
attach apocryphal - i.e. Gnostic - works
to both the Old and New Testaments of
the Bible, for these serve the purpose
of watering down and perverting the
doctrines as well as the Authority of
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Possible emendation sources as discussed by Donaldson
The letter of Barnabas was subsequently edited by Mader (Helmstadt 1655), and in the collections of Cotelerius, Russel, Gallandi, Hefele, Reithmayr, and Muralto. It was published separately by Fell (Oxford 1685, i2mo.), and by Le Moyne in his Varia Sacra.
Dressel has examined all the manuscripts to which he


Hugo Menardus
Cod. Ottobonianus 348,
Dressel calls Codex Vaticanus 859,
===
All
the copies, however, were burnt in a fire that broke out
in Oxford in 1644. Meantime Hugo Menardus had

The Florentine manuscript is that called Cod. Mediceus
(Plut. vii. num. 21) by Dressel (p. lxii.), and said to

1671452365924.png
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
changed to another imaginary woman Rada - actually it was Romœ - Rome
the name of Rada given in the Palatine text to the woman whom Hermas meets on the banks of the Tiber.

Vision A - 4th Line
http://www.embarl.force9.co.uk/Other/Hermas_a_d.pdf
1671463787224.png

. μετὰ χρόνον τινὰ λουομένην εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν τὸν Τίβεριν

Rome in Blue - Tiber in Red
Athous Anger-Dindorf seems to have Rome, not Rada
Palatine has the Rada error .. is it ok in Vulgata
1671464254005.png


Sinaiticus
ειϲ ρωμην μετα
1671463977100.png


1671464105528.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Now, many may accept Maximo as original due to the circular reasoning involving Sinaiticus as 4th century.

Der Hirt des Hermas (1868)
Theodor Zahn
https://books.google.com/books?id=RQc3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PR3
https://books.google.com/books?id=vUBWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR3
https://books.google.com/books?id=-QhGAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR3
https://books.google.com/books?id=z7JWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR3

Tischendorf as authority, no mention of his Athous attack arguments.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vUBWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA4

Review
https://books.google.com/books?id=spgpsUAtYYoC&pg=PA853

Maintenance
https://www.proquest.com/openview/8...60cbead843/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1817045

Authorities - Sinaiticus #1 will have to consider Maximus as original! :)

The Apostolic Fathers: The Shepherd of Hermas. The Martyrdom of Polycarp. The Epistle of Diognetus
Kirsopp Lake (1917)
https://archive.org/details/apostolicfathers02lakeuoft/page/22/mode/2up
https://books.google.com/books?id=lqsNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA3
1673181834611.png

"But you shall say to Maximus"
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Zahn on Tischendorf and barbarous Latin

1673182515812.png

1673182562371.png

1673182612161.png

1673182653756.png

bringt. (5e ermutigen eitbtid) ju einer einbringenberen (Srforfdjung
beb £irtcit bie iiberrafdjenb glucflidjen unb rafd) auf eittcmber fot=
genbcti g'iiube unb Veröffentlichungen ber lefcten jroölf ^nljre, roeldje
an bie Stelle einer einzigen tuatjrljaft barbarifdjen lateinifdjcn
Ueberfefzung und einzeiner Anführungen bei ben griechisdjen Birchen=
vatern, womit ntau fich so lange behelfen musste, ein reidjes
Material zur Serfteüung des urfprünglichen Textes gesegt haben.
Bier von einanber unabhängige Tertuellian, bie mit bem Hamen
beb Simonides berühmt gewordene, beinah voüständige leipziger
Handschjrift, welche zuerst Anger und Dindorf berausgaben 1), bie
zweite lateinische Ueberfebung, weldje Dressel zugleidi mit einer
neuen von Tischendorf beforgten Auegabe dee griedjifchen Hermas


an bie Stelle einer einzigen tuatjrljaft barbarifdjen lateinifdjcn Ueberfefzung und einzeiner Anführungen bei ben griechisdjen Birchen=vatern, womit ntau fich so lange behelfen musste, ein reidjes Material zur Serfteüung des urfprünglichen Textes gesegt haben. Bier von einanber unabhängige Tertuellian, bie mit bem Hamen beb Simonides berühmt gewordene, beinah voüständige leipziger Handschjrift, welche zuerst Anger und Dindorf berausgaben 1), bie zweite lateinische Ueberfebung, weldje Dressel zugleidi mit einer neuen von Tischendorf beforgten Auegabe dee griedjifchen Hermas



1673183068536.png



»eröffeutüdjte8), ein ätl)iopi(d)er, »on A. b’Abbabie hcraubgege--
bener unb mit fateiuifdjer Ucbcrfc^ung begleiteter STejt8) unb ein
großcb Vrudjftiicf beb griedjifdjcn ^ermab in ber finaitifd)en ^aitb*
fdjrift (1863) boten bic SDiöglidjfcit, bae fo lange »ernnftnltete

1) Hermac Pastor graece, primum edidit R. Anger, praefat. et indic.
adjecit G. Dindorf. 1856. Sie @e|d)idue ber Scyte unb ber barüber ge
führten ©crtjanbluitgcn f. in ftürje bei Hilgenfeld, Nov. 'J’estam. extra
canon. rec. fase. 111. Prolegg. p. III sqq.
2) Patruiu apost. opera rec. Dressei. 1857 p XXXIX—LV; p.4U9—637.
s) 'Ubbaublungcn fiir bie ftunbe beb 2)iovgenlanbb. ‘2. ©<mb 1862,
91r. 1: Hcrmac Pastor. Aethiopice primum edidit et aetliiopica latine
vertit Ant. d'Abbadie. 1860.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
CARM cjab tries to throw sand on the Latin Hermas Vulgata evidence.
Without mentioning even one ms!
https://forums.carm.org/threads/codex-sinaiticus-the-facts.12990/page-29#post-1025859
He goes to printed editions after Sinaiticus to pretend that is the mirror on the Latin Vulgata mss.

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

VULGATA versions

"Dices autem: Magna ecce tribulatio venit. Si tibi videtur, iterum nega."
(critical edition of the oldest translation of the Vulgata - Cecconi 2014)
https://books.google.com/books?id=9t3mBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA3

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

"Dices autem Magno: Ecce tribulatio venit. Si tibi videtur, iterum nega."
Adolphus Hilgenfeld 1873
https://books.google.com/books?id=a987AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA11

An emendation from the Palatine

7. Magno (AfaJ^w): Ecce emend., magna ecce Yat., magna vere D., ecce magna ed. pr. v.

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

Here is the actual Vulgate text.

"Dices autem : ecce magna tribulatio venit. Si tibi videtur, iterum nega."
(PATRUM APOSTOLICORUM OPERA- Dressel 1863)

Donaldson
The common Latin translation is : Dices autem ; ecce magna tribulatio venit . '
Also add the Barnabas editions here to the Latin Barnabas edition page

Liber trium virorum & trium spiritualium virginum, (ed. Jacobo Fabro Stapulensi) Stvdivm Piorvm
1513 - Stapulensis - d'Etaples
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ax1SAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA8-IA1

1575
https://books.google.com/books?id=cplaAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA5
1589
https://books.google.com/books?id=_exPLIuiWVYC&pg=PA15

1610
https://books.google.com/books?id=MV7ZVHhAq0wC&pg=PA3

Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum Et antiquorum Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. 5 : 2
1618
Marguerin de La Bigne (d. c. 1590)
https://books.google.com/books?id=5hJaZnpamdwC&pg=PA28
1677
https://books.google.com/books?id=qupgAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA25

De Statu Animae
By Claudianus (Mamertus), Caspar von Barth, Andreas Schottus,
1655
https://books.google.com/books?id=_X9gAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA882

S.S. Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt: Barnabae, Clementis, Hermae, Ignatii, Polycarpi, Opera...
Johannes Baptista Cotelerius,.
1672
https://books.google.com/books?id=8NaIu4ndhrYC&pg=PA37

1680
https://books.google.com/books?id=YdxYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA28

La Sainte Bible en latin et en françois, avec des notes litterales pour l'intelligence des endroits les plus difficiles : et la concorde des quatre evangelistes Monsieur Le Maistre de Saci. Divisée en trois tomes. Avec un quatrième tome, contenant les livres Apocryphes, en latin & en françois, & plusieurs autres pieces, Volume 4
La Sainte Bible - Latin and French
1717
https://books.google.com/books?id=eufzQ2vxBvQC&pg=PA167
Guillaume Desprez (París), Jean Desessartz (París)
https://books.google.com/books?id=-liFtpiUQpAC&pg=PA167

Codicis Apocryphi NOVI TESTAMENTI.: Parts tertia, Volume 3
Johann Albert Fabricius
1719
https://books.google.com/books?id=gSZfAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA787

Histoire generale des auteurs sacres et ecclesiastiques, qui ..., Volume 1
1729
Rémi Ceillier
1673603207865.png

1858
https://books.google.com/books?id=s-gvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA332

Patrum Apostolicorum Barnabae, Hermae, Clementis, Ignatii, Polycarpi, Opera genuina una cum Ignatii et Polycarpi Martyriis: versionibus antiquis ... accesserunt S. Ignatii Epistolae, tum interpolatae tum supposititiae cura R. Russel: Epistola Catholica, una com versione latine, tum vetere, tum recentiore, selectisque variorum notis, accessit S. Hermae. 1,1
1746
Richardi Russel
https://books.google.com/books?id=pz5bAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA137

Bibliotheca veterum patrum antiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, postrema Lugdunensi longe locupletior atque accuratior, Volume 1
1765
André Galland
https://books.google.com/books?id=pp_UUbxXFZMC&pg=PA61

Hadriani not Hermas includes quote
1770
Joseph Toscani
https://books.google.com/books?id=EzucYCeWr0kC&pg=PA419

Patrum apostolicorum opera: textum ex editionibus praestantissimis repetitum recognovit : brevi adnotatione instruxit et in usum praelectionum academicarum
Karl Joseph Hefele
1839
https://books.google.com/books?id=2gRNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA142
1842
https://books.google.com/books?id=0bZpAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA152
many editions

1853
Hilgenfeld
https://books.google.com/books?id=EslXrarzbV8C&pg=PA132
1673604861291.png

1881
https://books.google.com/books?id=ltgCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR17
includes Origen
1887
https://books.google.com/books?id=1sIUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR19
1673605261072.png

1673605306295.png



1856
Review of Tischendorf - translate from German
https://books.google.com/books?id=-XDpAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA745
1673604699777.png


1857
https://books.google.com/books?id=oyZibPsKrkUC&pg=PA897

Patrum Apostolicorum opera. Textum ad fidem codicum et Græcorum et Latinorum, ineditorum copia insignium, adhibitis præstantissimis editionibus, recensuit atque emendavit, notis illustravit, versione Latina passim correcta, prolegomenis, indicibus instruxit A. R. M. D. Accedit Hermæ Pastor, ex fragmentis Græcis Lipsiensibus, instituta quæstione de vero ejus textus fonte auctore C. Tischendorf
1857
Dressel and Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=MbRWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA418
1673603702069.png


Patrologiae cursus completus ...: Series graeca, Volume 2
Migne
https://books.google.com/books?id=LpDYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA897

Simonides
Greek- Latin

Memnon: archäologische Monatsschrift, Volume 1
1857
https://books.google.com/books?id=Rh9BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT19
1673603922832.png

1673603979234.png

1673604059886.png


1860
1673604438796.png

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


PALATINE
"dices autem Maximo : Ecce tribulatio supervenit tibi. Si placuerit tibi iterum negare"
(PATRUM APOSTOLICORUM OPERA Gebhardt, Harnack 1877)

This is correct for the two Palatine mss.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
"Dices autem Magno: Ecce tribulatio venit. Si tibi videtur, iterum nega."
Adolphus Hilgenfeld 1873
https://books.google.com/books?id=a987AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA11

An emendation from the Palatine

7. Magno (Greek): Ecce emend., magna ecce Vat., magna vere D., ecce magna ed. pr. v.
1673619607606.png


p. vii
D - Dresdensis A47 - 15th century L1
Vat - Vaticanus L1
p. viii -
Pal Palatina
v Cotelerius Dressel
=========================================


More Hilgenfeld - add to cjab and 1853 and 1887
1884
https://books.google.com/books?id=CokHAQAAIAAJ&pg=PR17
1881
1673605506972.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
VULGATA versions

Why the capitalization .. magna ecce and ecce magna transpose in the mss.

"Dices autem: Magna ecce tribulatio venit. Si tibi videtur, iterum nega."
(critical edition of the oldest translation of the Vulgata - Cecconi 2014)
https://books.google.com/books?id=9t3mBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA3

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

p. 44 - NOTE CONTEXT OF TWO GREAT TRIBULATION SECTIONS IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH
1673690640296.png

1673690863453.png

Sinaiticus Bodmer Athous

He is capitalizing only because it is after colon.
1673691248568.png

magna ecce tribulatio
magno ecce tribulatio - Hilgenfeld emendation
magnas tribulationes
magnam tribulationem


p. 56 has honorifico also more great tribulation
1673691616252.png

1673691706283.png

p. 57 shows great tribulation , no name
1673690229158.png
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hilgenfeld 1887 on the general issue of SInaiticus
https://books.google.com/books?id=71k-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PR35
1674334764059.png

1674334822963.png

V. De Hermae Pastore graece integro edendo. Sinaiticum codicem (S) omnium optimum non unus solus codex comitatur et continuat, codex enim Lipsiensis, qui est Clementinus (L et inde a Sim. IX, 30, 3 consignatus C) comitem habet Amphilochii (vel Panteleemonis?) codicem, quem inde a Sim. IX, 30, 1 nobis cognitum consigno A. Lipsiensis vel Clementinus codex suppletur Simonidis apographo (L9). quo iam a Simonidis adversariorum iniuria vindicato, apogra- phum I (L*) contra Simonidem detrahentem defendere vix opus est iam Sinaitico codice satis confirmatum. Simonides prius suum apograplium ad indoctum Abramium retulit et edi noluit, sed ipse dignum habuit, quod emendaret et suppleret, quod si ad Clementinum codicem non pertinet, procul dubio ex alio codice haustum est minime contemnendo, utrumque apographum liberalitcr missum Lipsiensis Bibliothecae academicae praefectis debeo, quibus maximam gratiam habeo.

V. On the Shepherd of Hermes, by editing the Greek in its entirety.

The Sinaitic codex (S), the best of all, is accompanied and continued by not one single codex, for the Leipzig codex, which is Clementinus (L and thence consigned to Sim. 9, 30, 3, C) has the codex of Amphilochius (or Panteleemon?), which thence from yes 9, 30, 1 The codex known to us by A. Lipsiensis or Clementinus is supplemented by the apographo of Simonides (L9). where the injury of Simonides' adversaries had already been vindicated, there is hardly any need to defend the apograph I (L*) against Simonides, who was detracting from the fact that the Sinaitic code had already been sufficiently confirmed. Simonides first reported his apograpium to the uneducated Abramius and refused to eat it, but he himself had the dignity to correct and supplement it, which, if it does not belong to the Clemeutian codex, was without a doubt drawn from another codex with the least contempt. to whom I have the greatest gratitude.
 
Top