Currently on the BCHF forum.
... Putting all these circumstances together, we think that the best solution of the problem is to suppose that we have, as the basis of our present Greek manuscripts, a recension and modernized version belonging to the sixth or seventh century, and that the editor used all the materials at his command, having probably in his possession large portions of the original text, but filling up gaps from some Latin translations, introducing parts from some modifications of the text, such as those of pseudo-Athanasius, and clothing the whole in the language current among the Christian populace of his day. We may add that the texts of Hilgenfeld and Gebhardt partake somewhat of the character which we have assigned to our sixth-century recension. They have used the Latin translations to amend the Greek, and where the Greek is defective they have re-translated the Latin into Greek.
The hypothesis we have proposed we do not deem by any means certain. The subject is one which awaits fuller investigation. We have been compelled to omit considerable portions of our argument, for they would occupy too much space; but it is enough to draw attention to some of the most prominent characteristics of this curious problem. It is not one of great consequence, as far as the substance of Hermas is concerned. It has much more to do with the date of the Sinaitic Codex, and the evidence points to a strong confirmation of Hilgenfeld's opinion that that Codex is not earlier than the sixth century. - p. 514
But there are, however, attempts made him much further back zoom. Hofffmann maintains the Ambrosian and Syrian palimpsest Iliad as older than the cod. Sinaiticus, while Hilgenfeld and Donaldson placed it in the 6th century for linguistic reasons, as in the Old and New Testaments the genuine optative occurs frequently [Donaldson, p. 511], while in Hermas it occurs only once. Even such forms as (Grk) can be found only when Hermas in c. Sinaiticus and the Leipzig fragments.
Undue weight, in his opinion, has been attached by the editor to the beauty and form of the uncial characters. An un-theological friend well versed in palaeography, whose opinion he asked, drew from an inspection of the writing the same conclusion at which Hilgenfeld had arrived through another process,—viz. that the MS. could not be older than the sixth century. ... The text of this Codex of the New Testament is disfigured by constant mis-spellings, and abounds in violations of all the laws of flexion and syntax. ... Hilgenfeld sees in the barbarism of the Sinai tic text clear proofs of a later age and a declining culture, and thinks our MS. may possibly have been the work of some monks of the convent of St Catharine, where it was discovered, and which was not founded till 530 A.D. p. 215-216
... traces of illiterate carelessness. ... In the Sinaiticus, these phenomena reach their height The force of Hilgenfeld's argument depends on the character of the variations exhibited by the Codex Sinaiticus,—whether they are merely the less usual forms of words, and modes of expression and construction, such as we know existed in the Hellenistic and colloquial Greek of the apostolic age, and would naturally find a place in the Christian writings of that period,—or whether they are such as are evidently traceable to the simple growth of barbarism. p. 216
... could not, therefore, have been written earlier than the sixth century, subsequent to the foundation of St Catharine's monastery in 530 A.D Hilgenfeld regards the internal character of this MS. as in full accordance with this supposition of its date. He looks on it as a hasty transcript by ignorant and incompetent scribes, whose astounding blunders have caused endless trouble to its numerous correctors. It abounds in omissions; which can only be ascribed to haste, as this is not a usual fault in the worst manuscripts. Hilgenfeld has given a list of these. Some blunders, resulting obviously from the same cause, are scarcely credible. ... p. 21-220
Judging from the instances alleged by Hilgenfeld, which have been taken from all parts of the New Testament and which we have in every instance carefully verified by a reference to the original text, we should say that the Sinaitic text is generally very corrupt, abounding with extraordinary violations both of grammar and of sense. We have rarely turned to a single passage referred to by Hilgenfeld, without finding in the context some other example of corruption... (p. 221)
Then there is a considerable number of passages 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.
The Apostolical Fathers: A Critical Account of Their Genuine Writings and of Their Doctrines (1864)
3 Vis. ii. 3.
Codex Sinaiticus Project
Q93 f2r, Hermas 7:4
. εριϲ δε μαξιμω ε̣ιδου θλιψειϲ ερχεται εαν ϲοι φανη δοκη παλιν αρνηϲαι εγγυϲ κϲ τοιϲ επιϲτρεφομενοιϲ ωϲ γεγραπται εν τω ε ελδαδ και ωδατ μωδατ μωδατ τοιϲ προφητευϲαϲιν εν (verso) τη ερημω τω λαω ·
Hermas 3:4 But thou shalt say to Maximus, "Behold tribulation cometh (upon thee), if thou think fit to deny a second time. The Lord is nigh unto them that turn unto him, as it is written in Eldad and Modat, who prophesied to the people in the wilderness."
Ante-Nicene Christian Library
Frederick Crombie translation - (1827-1889)
Blessed are all they who practise righteousness, for they shall never be destroyed. Now you will tell Maximus: Lo! 1 tribulation cometh on. If it seemeth good to thee, deny again. The Lord is near to them who return unto Him, as it is written in Eldad and Modat,who prophesied to the people in the wilderness.”
1 Now you will say: Lo! great tribulation cometh on.— Vat.
Lo! exceedingly great tribulation cometh on.—Lips.
PBodmer 38 confirms the early and accurate Hermas text with the great tribulation.
In the quote above, when it said
"E sembra presuppore (ma dopo Μαξιμω) μεγαλη."
E seems to presuppose (But after 'Maximo'), megale."
E is Ethiopic
is the note on p. 73 is saying that Ethiopic translation seems to reflect Maximus rather than magna?
Bodmer 38 having:
ις δε Μαχιμω ιδου θλιψεις ερχε
the same dubious reading as Sinaiticus, that looks like it comes from a Latin retorversion, lessens the ability to use this as a singular late dating Sinaiticus evidence.
Anger & Dinsdorf (1856) have the correct megale.
Page 9, Visions II, 3
Ereis de idou thlipsis erchetai megale sfodra.
Ερεισ δε ιδου θλιψις ερχεται μαγαλη σφοδρα
Tischendorf, 1856, page 5, Visions II, 3
Ereis de Maximo Idou thlipsis erchetai
Ερεις δε Μαξιμω (6) Ιδου θλιψις ερχεται
6) ερεις δε μαξιμω: ita prorsus apogr.
That means "exactly like the apograph" -
Exactly what the copy in front of me says.
So Anger and Dindorf changed the text! Tischendorf says he wrote it as the text SAYS.
But now we come to maximum overkill. As I said, all but one of the Latin translations of the Shepherd of Hermas are pretty much the same. But one stands out: the Palatine Codex 150 of the Vatican Library.
And one example above all convinced me that Simonides’ Lipsiensis and the Sinaiticus Hermas both seem back-translated from the Vatican Palatine Codex: Visions ii.3. There is more than one numbering system. Online it’s called Hermas 7:4.
As Donaldson showed, it’s supposed to say “But say thou, behold, great tribulation cometh.” In Latin, great is “magna.” In Greek, great is “megale.” And “thlipsis megale” is exactly the term “great tribulation” used three times in the New Testament.
But the Vatican’s Palatine Codex changed “magna” to “maximo.” That’s like changing “great” to “greatest.” Or, Maximo could be the name of a person, “Maximus.” Either way, it’s the wrong word. Guess what Simonides’ Lipsiensis says? Maximo!
Guess what the Sinaiticus did with the Greek? It also transliterated Maximo!
In fact, in Donaldson’s words, “Now we find that the text of the Pastor of Hermas found in the Sinaitic codex is substantially the same as that given in the Athos manuscript. The variations are comparatively slight.”
He also wrote:
And there isn’t anything earlier they could have copied.Then there is a considerable number of passages 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.
The Greek would have been:
thlipsis θλιψιν for tribulation and
megale μεγαλη for great
correct Greek word)--> megale, μεγαλη
As is seen in the early papyri.
p. 73 of Papyrus Bodmer XXXVIII, Erma: Il Pastory (Ia-IIIa visione) (Cologny-Geneve: Fondation Martin Bodmer, 1991)
"Behold a great tribulation" - that must be maintained.
Also on p. 73:
"E sembra presuppore (ma dopo Μαξιμω) μεγαλη."
Seems to presuppose (But after 'Maximo'), megale
and this is in the NT with tribulation.
Matthew 24:21 θλιψις μεγαλη
Revelation 2:22 (accusative case) θλιψιν μεγαλην
the general Latin Vulgate texts say:
magna - which means "great" and corresponds to "megale" μεγαλη in Greek
L1 (Latin Vulgate) is "magna ecce tribulatio che deve essert mantenuto"
(μεγαλη translated correctly to Latin) -- magna
the corrupted Latin would be as in the Palatine (Palatinus) and this error for "great" is ONLY in this one spot:
error: maximo (maximum - greatest) instead of the correct
magna - magno (great). - that's "great" which is a comparative, they should never have changed magno to maximo
maximo makes no sense back translated into Greek.
(maximus is an intensive - a superlative)
Sinaiticus Latin retroversion error
(Greek word brought back from wrong Latin into Sinaiticus) Μαξιμω ( μαξιμω )
(correct Greek word)--> megale, μεγαλη
(translated correctly to Latin) -- magna
(Latin tweak, change of form) -- maximo
(Greek word from wrong Latin becomes name) — Maximo Μαξιμω
(μαξιμω in Sinaiticus leads to nonsensical variant “speak to Maximus”)
Question for research.
We want to see if the name error existed in the Latin.
If the Palatine Codex 150 actually has the word capitalized or not.
If not - then it's a superlative for a comparative, greatest for great.
If it's capitalized, the copyist take it for a person, Maximus.
Either way the Greek is wrong with Maximus and has come from the late Palatine.
Another question is the date of the Ethiopic ms and how it got a dual reading.
"Barnabas... and it contains many of the conjectural emendations previously proposed by scholars."
James Donaldson (1864)
"warnings of Lykurgos, could not resist the investigations of the profoundly learned Egyptian scholar, Lepsius, who was the first to detect the cooked-up text, partly derived from his own works and the works of Chevalier Bunsen" - Simonides
Gentlemen's Magazine (1856)
About 1855, Simonides offered to Karl Richard Lepsius, then Professor of Egyptology at Berlin and considered the founder of modern Egyptology, a Greek manuscript written by one Uranius of Alexandria and containing a history of the kings of Egypt. Delighted to find an ancient work that so precisely confirmed his own theories on the early history of Egypt, Lepsius advanced 2,000 thalers to the Prussian Academy to allow it to buy the manuscript (assuming a rough equivalency between an 1855 thaler and an 1855 dollar, that would be some $60,000 today).
The Jesus' Wife Papyrus in the History of Forgery (2015)
Simply put, Donaldson, for linguistic reasons, believes that the Barnabas text is not an authentic 4th-century Greek text. Later, he goes into this more.
Note: his reference to: "contains many of the conjectural emendations previously proposed by scholars" may be ironic. It has often occurred that non-genuine texts base themselves on modern scholarship to fill in the gaps, and has been a smoking ink-spot. And Simonides was accused of using published texts and emendation suggestion improvements at times. However, I would not press the point without first knowing many of the emendations, and also whether they were published as a group, and how strong are the matches.