Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

[Maestroh]

There is nothing in the monastery that supplies any provenance before 1840.

You have no idea whether this is true or not.
You haven't been to the monastery and checked every inch.

What's funny is you AGAIN are trying to have it both ways in an argument:
a) when it's Mt Athos, "well, we don't know what all might be there."
b) but when it's Mt Sinai, you are 100% sure of what CANNOT be there

Yet, provenance is supposed to be the key to forgery studies.
A point emphasized in a paper:
"Fake Fragments, Flexible Provenances: Eight Aramaic 'Dead Sea Scrolls' from the 21st Century,"
by Årstein Justnes.

Does Justnes actually argue Sinaiticus in that paper?
If not, your citation of the work is irrelevant.

The Donati comment does not even describe Sinaiticus.

Actually, it does - but I can understand why it is so difficult for you to simply admit it.

 

[Maestroh]

Mistakes happen. The privacy settings were correct for most private sections.
The ones that needed adjustment are fixed.

You're welcome.

Generally, the correspondence is friendly,

Yes. You write pretending to be an impartial researcher and they don't know from reading your online garbage that you've got more of an agenda than the Chief of Staff to the White House

and its being read is no big change, since it is discussing Sinaiticus, Hermas, Tobit, Song of Songs, etc. Not quite the Twitter files. However, of course it is proper to keep the specific words off of board discussions.

Then you shouldn't have posted them on your board - problem solved.

If you decide you have no ethics, that is your decision.

Says a guy who hides his theology and lack of language knowledge from the world and pretends "I never said I knew Greek" is an excuse.
You never issue a disclaimer in your snide posts about "I never studied this," either - yet you then get mad at other people for hiding things.

It isn't my fault you were stupid. It was yours.

It was funny that the Paolo Cecconi short note led to cjab finding the excellent John Zinkand review, confirming our position that the Hermas material and the Tischendorf accusations followed by reverse-spin supports a late Hermas.

It is funny how you just make up things out of thin air and think they're evidence. THAT is what is funny.

 

[Maestroh]

I'm still not sure what's even being alleged on this Μάξιμοι thing.

What's he claiming?? I still don't understand what the claim is supposed to be - which is probably intentional.
That this came from Latin into Greek and that proves something about Simonides?

Μάξιμοι (same word, different form) occurs in the "Histories" of Polybius (3.87.6):
Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ δικτάτορα μὲν κατέστησαν Κόιντον Φάβιον, ἄνδρα καὶ φρονήσει διαφέροντα καὶ πεφυκότα καλῶς. ἔτι γοῦν ἐπεκαλοῦντο καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς οἱ ταύτης τῆς οἰκίας Μάξιμοι, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔστι μέγιστοι, διὰ τὰς ἐκείνου τἀνδρὸς ἐπιτυχίας καὶ πράξεις.

Polybius lived in the 2nd Century BC, so obviously the word was around then - which means it simply isn't any problem.

THAT'S THE POINT - everything Donaldson said about "these words don't occur until after the 4th century" IS WRONG!!!
It has been wrong for a century and a half.


And the fact these bozoes are betting their positions on one word in one extra-testamental source is laughably absurd and desperation running amock.

I have no doubt that part of the reason we only have one post in the last 16-20 hours from Spencer (Not For Hire) is because he is desperately trying to come up with a way to turn chicken poo into chicken salad now that his Mazimw claim has been exposed as a fraud. I'm sure he's been desperately combing through his notes and emails hoping to find SOMETHING that he thinks he can throw out there to stop the sinking ship (he can't - it's already at the bottom of the ocean).

I figure he's going to go with the "but that's a later assimilation to type" or something....you know, the same thing that's a crime against humanity when Westcott and Hort said it. All of a sudden, he will find virtues in their methods without attribution.

There is ZERO shame in a Queens NARC.

 

[cjab]

There is nothing in the monastery that supplies any provenance before 1840.

Yet, provenance is supposed to be the key to forgery studies.
A point emphasized in a paper:
"Fake Fragments, Flexible Provenances: Eight Aramaic 'Dead Sea Scrolls' from the 21st Century,"
by Årstein Justnes.

The Donati comment does not even describe Sinaiticus.

You conveniently forget the leaves of Sinaiticus contained in book bindings dated to c.1704-1727. So the facts are exactly contrary to what you have summarized.

You also forget that some of the Arabic notes, i.e. those in Revelation, can be dated to exactly, to the 15th century. Parker ""medieval corrections.. some Arabic glosses, notably one that may be dated between 1453 and 1492." Consult your own Web site.

_________________

Kevin McGrane p.107: "One of the most recently found fragments was part of the leaf containing Joshua 1. This appears in
Greek volume S.2289 in the library of St Catherine’s, which volume was bound by
the monastery itself around 1727, [242] the Codex leaf being re-cycled as a board lining.
It was discovered in 2009 because the covering paper pastedown had become torn,
thereby exposing writing from the Codex beneath. [243] This finding on its own
militates against Dr Cooper’s thesis of a nineteenth century origin of the Codex.

[242] S.2289 is one of a group of 18 manuscript bindings that were bound in the monastery c.1704-1727,
with common binding methods, structure, sewing, decoration and tooling marks.

[243] Nikolas Sarris, Classification of Finishing Tools in Greek Bookbinding: Establishing Links from the Library
of St Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai, Egypt (PhD Thesis, 2010). See also The discovery of an additional Codex
Sinaiticus fragment in Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript (2015).

 

[Shoonra]

Part of my job, when I was alive, was as a bibliographer, and I am fully aware that ancient and medieval monastic training does not include bibliography. But when bits of a ms show up in bindings which can be dated (or at least estimated), that is very strong circumstantial evidence that the ms itself is older, and if it's being reused in book bindings, presumably much much older.

 

[cjab]

I'm still not sure what's even being alleged on this Μάξιμοι thing.

What's he claiming?? I still don't understand what the claim is supposed to be - which is probably intentional.
That this came from Latin into Greek and that proves something about Simonides?

This is an exceedingly convoluted argument, and must be framed in its historical context. As I understand it, it relies initially on Tischendorf taking into account the two Latin translations of Hermas (Old Latin and Palatine), and the Greek text of Hermas, comparing them, and making deductions upon being presented with the Hermas of Simonides (Codex Lipsiensis).

But when Tischendorf first made these comparisons and allegations, the Siniaticus Hermas was yet to be discovered. Tischendorf had become immediately under the impression that Simonides or one of his companions had reverse translated the Palatine Hermas into Greek to forge the Codex Lipsiensis. But he subsequently resiled upon his own discovery of Siniaticus Hermas, but remained unsure of whether the Siniaticus Hermas (or the manuscripts on which it was based) was the original Greek of Hermas, or an (old) translation from a Latin Hermas. Current scholarship finds no evidence to suggest that the Greek of Hermas et al. are retro-translated from the Latin.

The KJVOists are still pursing this, partly based on an outright fabrication that they have continuing support from Tischendorf himself, which is nonsense, because Tischendorf in his 1863 Preface to Patrum Apostolicorum Opera (Dessel edn.) became completely non-commital as to whether the Latin or Greek had come first (i.e. in ancient times).

But in addition to this rank dissembling over Tischendorf, the KJVO crowd continue to make unfounded allegations based on Donaldson's remarks that the Codex Lipsiensi contains later Greek words, and partly on the presence of "Maximo" in the Palatine Latin and in the Greek. From Avery's website:

​

"Donaldson’s first objection was that a lot of words in Simonides’ Lipsiensis are actually more Modern Greek words, and not words that he has ever found in such abundance in any ancient Greek manuscript. What Donaldson said was, “A great number of words unknown to the classical period but common in later or modern Greek.”"​

​

"A second proof that Donaldson gave was about Greek words in a Latin form, instead of a Greek form. Which in the book Hermas, Visions 3:1, (listed as Hermas 9:4 online), you can see that if you look at one line of the verse it says kaie at the end of a line and then in the next line it says kaie and continues onward with the verse. Believe it or not, Scribe B2 actually started writing kaie on the previous line, and then they started all over again on the next line."​

Avery further says:

​

"[Maximo] shows that Simonides’ Lipsiensis and the Sinaitic Hermas are both back-translated from the Vatican Palatine Codex. When you take a look at Visions 2:3 (online it is Hermas 7:4) we see a verse that Donaldson showed is supposed to say, “But say thou, behold, great tribulation cometh.” In Latin great is “magna,” but in Greek it’s “megale;” and “thlipsis megale” is exactly the term great tribulation used 3 times in the New Testament. But the Vatican’s Palatine Codex changed magna to maximo; which is like changing great to greatest. However, Maximo could also be the name of a person, such as Maximus; so that could get you confused."​

​

"Simonides’ Lipsiensis actually transliterated the word Maximo in Greek. The Sinaiticus also did the same thing in its Greek text, and as we see in Donaldson’s words, “Now we find that the text of the Pastor of Hermas, found in the Sinaiticus Codex is substantially the same as that given in the Athos manuscript,” he also wrote, “Then there is a considerable number of passages preserved to us in Greek by Origen and other writers: The Sinaitic Greek differs often form this Greek, and agrees with the Latin translation, especially the Palatine.”"​

​

"What this means is that there isn’t anything earlier they could have copied from so Codex Sinaiticus isn’t an old manuscript at all, in fact it is a fake, phony, counterfeit."​

​

"It isn’t from 350 AD, and isn’t from 450 AD, it can be no older than 1350 AD."​

​

"Simply stated, the Sinaiticus is not the best and it is not the oldest. At best it’s a medieval phony.” End of Quote (sic)"​

​

(NB: I'm not sure what the boldened words "End of Quote" pertain to on Avery's website, as I have no idea where the beginning of his quote is, or from whom it is quoted,)

The above contains several fallacies, first because even if Sinaiticus had been translated from the Palatine, it could have been translated as early as the 4th century AD. But there are no grounds to suggest this. There is no evidence the Palatine Latin version ever reached the Levant or that Sinaiticus is a Latin retro-version.

Next Avery simply presumes that in the Palatine Latin (4th century), "Maximo" was mistranscribed from the Old Latin magna", but there is no evidential basis for this assumption, as it is involves not just a single word change, but a change to a series of words in sequence. Indeed the suggestion is rank nonsense, and ignores the fact that scholars now suggest there were various Latin versions of Hermas concurrent at the same time. Moreover as the Palatine Latin is an "improved" Latin translation, and there would be no reason to make this change, were there not other more authoritative manuscripts which contained "Maximo."

The next fallacy is that "there isn’t anything earlier [than the Palatine] that they could have copied [Sinaiticus] from." This too is rank nonsense, as there were many Greek manuscripts of Hermas in the Levant, where it was popular. Many early Greek fragments of Hermas survive, and a few also evidence "Maximo"(e.g. Bodmer XXXVIII and Aethopic translation).

Ergo: KJVO arguments are based on sheer conjecture unsupported by any evidence or recent scholarship.

Μάξιμοι (same word, different form) occurs in the "Histories" of Polybius (3.87.6):
Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ δικτάτορα μὲν κατέστησαν Κόιντον Φάβιον, ἄνδρα καὶ φρονήσει διαφέροντα καὶ πεφυκότα καλῶς. ἔτι γοῦν ἐπεκαλοῦντο καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς οἱ ταύτης τῆς οἰκίας Μάξιμοι, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔστι μέγιστοι, διὰ τὰς ἐκείνου τἀνδρὸς ἐπιτυχίας καὶ πράξεις.

Polybius lived in the 2nd Century BC, so obviously the word was around then - which means it simply isn't any problem.

THAT'S THE POINT - everything Donaldson said about "these words don't occur until after the 4th century" IS WRONG!!!
It has been wrong for a century and a half.

And the fact these bozoes are betting their positions on one word in one extra-testamental source is laughably absurd and desperation running amock.

Indeed.

 

[Maestroh]

This is an exceedingly convoluted argument,

In other words, it's not even worth making.

got it.

and must be framed in its historical context. As I understand it, it relies initially on Tischendorf taking into account the two Latin translations of Hermas (Old Latin and Palatine), and the Greek text of Hermas, comparing them, and making deductions upon being presented with the Hermas of Simonides (Codex Lipsiensis).

But when Tischendorf first made these comparisons and allegations, the Siniaticus Hermas was yet to be discovered. Tischendorf had become immediately under the impression that Simonides or one of his companions had reverse translated the Palatine Hermas into Greek to forge the Codex Lipsiensis. But he subsequently resiled upon his own discovery of Siniaticus Hermas, but remained unsure of whether the Siniaticus Hermas (or the manuscripts on which it was based) was the original Greek of Hermas, or an (old) translation from a Latin Hermas. Current scholarship finds no evidence to suggest that the Greek of Hermas et al. are retro-translated from the Latin.

The KJVOists are still pursing this, partly based on an outright fabrication that they have continuing support from Tischendorf himself, which is nonsense, because Tischendorf in his 1863 Preface to Patrum Apostolicorum Opera (Dessel edn.) became completely non-commital as to whether the Latin or Greek had come first (i.e. in ancient times).

But in addition to this rank dissembling over Tischendorf, the KJVO crowd continue to make unfounded allegations based on Donaldson's remarks that the Codex Lipsiensi contains later Greek words, and partly on the presence of "Maximo" in the Palatine Latin and in the Greek. From Avery's website:

​

"Donaldson’s first objection was that a lot of words in Simonides’ Lipsiensis are actually more Modern Greek words, and not words that he has ever found in such abundance in any ancient Greek manuscript. What Donaldson said was, “A great number of words unknown to the classical period but common in later or modern Greek.”"​

​

"A second proof that Donaldson gave was about Greek words in a Latin form, instead of a Greek form. Which in the book Hermas, Visions 3:1, (listed as Hermas 9:4 online), you can see that if you look at one line of the verse it says kaie at the end of a line and then in the next line it says kaie and continues onward with the verse. Believe it or not, Scribe B2 actually started writing kaie on the previous line, and then they started all over again on the next line."​

Avery further says:

​

"[Maximo] shows that Simonides’ Lipsiensis and the Sinaitic Hermas are both back-translated from the Vatican Palatine Codex. When you take a look at Visions 2:3 (online it is Hermas 7:4) we see a verse that Donaldson showed is supposed to say, “But say thou, behold, great tribulation cometh.” In Latin great is “magna,” but in Greek it’s “megale;” and “thlipsis megale” is exactly the term great tribulation used 3 times in the New Testament. But the Vatican’s Palatine Codex changed magna to maximo; which is like changing great to greatest. However, Maximo could also be the name of a person, such as Maximus; so that could get you confused."​

​

"Simonides’ Lipsiensis actually transliterated the word Maximo in Greek. The Sinaiticus also did the same thing in its Greek text, and as we see in Donaldson’s words, “Now we find that the text of the Pastor of Hermas, found in the Sinaiticus Codex is substantially the same as that given in the Athos manuscript,” he also wrote, “Then there is a considerable number of passages preserved to us in Greek by Origen and other writers: The Sinaitic Greek differs often form this Greek, and agrees with the Latin translation, especially the Palatine.”"​

​

"What this means is that there isn’t anything earlier they could have copied from so Codex Sinaiticus isn’t an old manuscript at all, in fact it is a fake, phony, counterfeit."​

​

"It isn’t from 350 AD, and isn’t from 450 AD, it can be no older than 1350 AD."​

​

"Simply stated, the Sinaiticus is not the best and it is not the oldest. At best it’s a medieval phony.” End of Quote (sic)"​

​

(NB: I'm not sure what the boldened words "End of Quote" pertain to on Avery's website, as I have no idea where the beginning of his quote is, or from whom it is quoted,)

The above contains several fallacies, first because even if Sinaiticus had been translated from the Palatine, it could have been translated as early as the 4th century AD. But there are no grounds to suggest this. There is no evidence the Palatine Latin version ever reached the Levant or that Sinaiticus is a Latin retro-version.

Next Avery simply presumes that in the Palatine Latin (4th century), "Maximo" was mistranscribed from the Old Latin magna", but there is no evidential basis for this assumption, as it is involves not just a single word change, but a change to a series of words in sequence. Indeed the suggestion is rank nonsense, and ignores the fact that scholars now suggest there were various Latin versions of Hermas concurrent at the same time. Moreover as the Palatine Latin is an "improved" Latin translation, and there would be no reason to make this change, were there not other more authoritative manuscripts which contained "Maximo."

The next fallacy is that "there isn’t anything earlier [than the Palatine] that they could have copied [Sinaiticus] from." This too is rank nonsense, as there were many Greek manuscripts of Hermas in the Levant, where it was popular. Many early Greek fragments of Hermas survive, and a few also evidence "Maximo"(e.g. Bodmer XXXVIII and Aethopic translation).

Ergo: KJVO arguments are based on sheer conjecture unsupported by any evidence or recent scholarship.

All I see is someone pretending that no advances in scholarship have happened in the last 150 years.

I reiterate - Donaldson is demonstrably wrong. It's not any more difficult to refute than picking up a copy of BDAG, researching the word Donaldson says doesn't occur, and finding the documented resources. It doesn't even require any thought, making it right up Avery's alley.


I can't imagine why he wouldn't do that basic first-grade "let me copy this article out of the encyclopedia and turn it in" level research.

Actually, I can. Someone who continues to pretend his nonsense hasn't been debunked will continue to pretend (wait for it) his nonsense hasn't been debunked.

 

[Steven Avery]

I reiterate - Donaldson is demonstrably wrong.

There are a number of arguments about the Latin of Hermas that come from both one Constantine Tischendorf and James Donaldson.

Are you even familiar with the Tischendorf section?
(This section includes Maximo.)

 

[Steven Avery]

You also forget that some of the Arabic notes, i.e. those in Revelation, can be dated to exactly, to the 15th century. Parker ""medieval corrections.. some Arabic glosses, notably one that may be dated between 1453 and 1492." Consult your own Web site.

“exactly” or “may be dated”. ???

Do you have any real palaeographic study on these notes?
Are any Arabic notes “very recent” at 1860? As stated by Tregelles and Gosche.
Any terminus post quem or terminus ante quem?

 

[cjab]

“exactly” or “may be dated”. ???

Do you have any real palaeographic study on these notes?
Are any Arabic notes “very recent” at 1860? As stated by Tregelles and Gosche.
Any terminus post quem or terminus ante quem?

So I take it you have no refutation of Parker. Fine. Everything else you have said is irrelevant to my point.

 

[Maestroh]

There are a number of arguments about the Latin of Hermas that come from both one Constantine Tischendorf and James Donaldson.

So.

Are you even familiar with the Tischendorf section?
(This section includes Maximo.)

Every single time - given a choice between posting like a human being or covering your insecurities with snotty condescension, you unfailingly choose the latter.

Given the fact in 15 years you have yet to present a single resource I didn't already know about - answer the question for yourself.

 

[Maestroh]

“exactly” or “may be dated”. ???

Do you have any real palaeographic study on these notes?
Are any Arabic notes “very recent” at 1860? As stated by Tregelles and Gosche.
Any terminus post quem or terminus ante quem?

Anyone else notice Avery has had zero to say about the fact Maximw existed before Christ was even born?

He's right back to driving the tricycle around the same circles he thinks he understands.


But let me make it so simple EVEN AVERY can understand it:
1) Donaldson asserted a bunch of words weren't found long enough ago in Greek to date Sinaiticus to the fourth century
2) Tischendorf was puzzled by the origin of Maximw
3) Since we now know Maximw isn't post-fourth century, the rest of the discussion on that particular point is utterly pointless.

The point is refuted never again to be invoked by any honest individual.


I could care less what Donaldson or Tischendorf said 160 years ago when we didn't have as much of a library of materials as we do now. They had never seen it, that's all.

We have now.


The end.



Pretending this is even a point to discuss is nothing more than a stalling tactic by the Fake Moon Landing advocate.

 

[Maestroh]

So I take it you have no refutation of Parker. Fine. Everything else you have said is irrelevant to my point.

Wow, sounds like he's still batting 1.000 in that category.

 

[cjab]

There are a number of arguments about the Latin of Hermas that come from both one Constantine Tischendorf and James Donaldson.

Are you even familiar with the Tischendorf section?
(This section includes Maximo.)

Are you "even" able to reproduce the "Tischendorf section" in English, or "even" able to make the Tischendorf argument in English, in its proper context?

 

[Maestroh]

“exactly” or “may be dated”. ???

Do you have any real palaeographic study on these notes?

for those of you not keeping score at home, this is PHONY question.

Why do I say this?

February 2, 2016, edited most recently in October 2022

The other point that can bust a document is future elements, from the time of the writing. There is no time symmetry in palaeography. A writer in 700 AD or 1840 AD can easily write in the style of 350 AD.

So you see - what he's REALLY saying here is this:

"Even if you DO see paleography proving a date, I will just dismiss it as "someone writing to make it look like."


In other words - his very question above about paleography is pretentious and phony. He already has all the answers to dismiss any evidence he wants to reject.

This is not how researchers work.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

“exactly” or “may be dated”. ???

Do you have any real palaeographic study on these notes?
Are any Arabic notes “very recent” at 1860? As stated by Tregelles and Gosche.
Any terminus post quem or terminus ante quem?

Are we to presume you are very familiar with Arabic palaeography, or are we to presume (the more likely option) that you are simply pretending that you know something about it?

 

[Unbound68]

Steven Avery said:

February 2, 2016, edited most recently in October 2022​

​

The other point that can bust a document is future elements, from the time of the writing. There is no time symmetry in palaeography. A writer in 700 AD or 1840 AD can easily write in the style of 350 AD.​

In “The Avery Diaries” (now hidden), Kevin McGrane hands his rear end to him on that stupidity.

Also, among the now hidden A-files, Avery admits in an e-mail to Amy Myshrall that her paleographic work is over his head!

So why does he persist as if he understands paleographic evidence at all?

Phony is right.

 

[Maestroh]

In “The Avery Diaries” (now hidden), Kevin McGrane hands his rear end to him on that stupidity.

Also, among the now hidden A-files, Avery admits in an e-mail to Amy Myshrall that her paleographic work is over his head!

So why does he persist as if he understands paleographic evidence at all?

Phony is right.

I learned years ago when he asks a question, he only has 1 of 2 motives, which are actually the same motive:
1) to throw something out there and say you don't know it and make himself feel smarter than you
2) to add to his database so when he goes out seeking more attention, he can throw in anecdotes to make him feel like he sounds smarter than you.

It's all ego and self-centered narcissism.

The reason he has never actually learned Greek or any of this stuff is because he fears having to admit to himself he's wrong. But his time on earth would have been better spent doing that than posting rage posts on a forum where he sounds like someone on his way home from work in the car after his boss tore him a new one at the end of the work day.

 

[Unbound68]

But his time on earth would have been better spent doing that than posting rage posts on a forum where he sounds like someone on his way home from work in the car after his boss tore him a new one at the end of the work day.

LOL!!!

Well if he’s as good at keeping private things private on his servers at work as he is at keeping e-mails private on his pc at home……

The fact that he mentioned “ethics” to you in a post on one of the previous pages, in light of the fact that he willingly moved alleged private e-mails from his pc to his online discussion forum, shows how completely divorced and disconnected from reality, as well as how much of a hypocrite, he really is.

 

[Steven Avery]

This is an exceedingly convoluted argument, and must be framed in its historical context. As I understand it, it relies initially on Tischendorf taking into account the two Latin translations of Hermas (Old Latin and Palatine), and the Greek text of Hermas, comparing them, and making deductions upon being presented with the Hermas of Simonides (Codex Lipsiensis).

But when Tischendorf first made these comparisons and allegations, the Siniaticus Hermas was yet to be discovered. Tischendorf had become immediately under the impression that Simonides or one of his companions had reverse translated the Palatine Hermas into Greek to forge the Codex Lipsiensis. But he subsequently resiled upon his own discovery of Siniaticus Hermas, but remained unsure of whether the Siniaticus Hermas (or the manuscripts on which it was based) was the original Greek of Hermas, or an (old) translation from a Latin Hermas. Current scholarship finds no evidence to suggest that the Greek of Hermas et al. are retro-translated from the Latin.

The KJVOists are still pursing this, partly based on an outright fabrication that they have continuing support from Tischendorf himself, which is nonsense, because Tischendorf in his 1863 Preface to Patrum Apostolicorum Opera (Dessel edn.) became completely non-commital as to whether the Latin or Greek had come first (i.e. in ancient times).

But in addition to this rank dissembling over Tischendorf, the KJVO crowd continue to make unfounded allegations based on Donaldson's remarks that the Codex Lipsiensi contains later Greek words, and partly on the presence of "Maximo" in the Palatine Latin and in the Greek. From Avery's website:

​

"Donaldson’s first objection was that a lot of words in Simonides’ Lipsiensis are actually more Modern Greek words, and not words that he has ever found in such abundance in any ancient Greek manuscript. What Donaldson said was, “A great number of words unknown to the classical period but common in later or modern Greek.”"​

​

"A second proof that Donaldson gave was about Greek words in a Latin form, instead of a Greek form. Which in the book Hermas, Visions 3:1, (listed as Hermas 9:4 online), you can see that if you look at one line of the verse it says kaie at the end of a line and then in the next line it says kaie and continues onward with the verse. Believe it or not, Scribe B2 actually started writing kaie on the previous line, and then they started all over again on the next line."​

Avery further says:

​

"[Maximo] shows that Simonides’ Lipsiensis and the Sinaitic Hermas are both back-translated from the Vatican Palatine Codex. When you take a look at Visions 2:3 (online it is Hermas 7:4) we see a verse that Donaldson showed is supposed to say, “But say thou, behold, great tribulation cometh.” In Latin great is “magna,” but in Greek it’s “megale;” and “thlipsis megale” is exactly the term great tribulation used 3 times in the New Testament. But the Vatican’s Palatine Codex changed magna to maximo; which is like changing great to greatest. However, Maximo could also be the name of a person, such as Maximus; so that could get you confused."​

​

"Simonides’ Lipsiensis actually transliterated the word Maximo in Greek. The Sinaiticus also did the same thing in its Greek text, and as we see in Donaldson’s words, “Now we find that the text of the Pastor of Hermas, found in the Sinaiticus Codex is substantially the same as that given in the Athos manuscript,” he also wrote, “Then there is a considerable number of passages preserved to us in Greek by Origen and other writers: The Sinaitic Greek differs often form this Greek, and agrees with the Latin translation, especially the Palatine.”"​

​

"What this means is that there isn’t anything earlier they could have copied from so Codex Sinaiticus isn’t an old manuscript at all, in fact it is a fake, phony, counterfeit."​

​

"It isn’t from 350 AD, and isn’t from 450 AD, it can be no older than 1350 AD."​

​

"Simply stated, the Sinaiticus is not the best and it is not the oldest. At best it’s a medieval phony.” End of Quote (sic)"​

​

(NB: I'm not sure what the boldened words "End of Quote" pertain to on Avery's website, as I have no idea where the beginning of his quote is, or from whom it is quoted,)

The above contains several fallacies, first because even if Sinaiticus had been translated from the Palatine, it could have been translated as early as the 4th century AD. But there are no grounds to suggest this. There is no evidence the Palatine Latin version ever reached the Levant or that Sinaiticus is a Latin retro-version.

Next Avery simply presumes that in the Palatine Latin (4th century), "Maximo" was mistranscribed from the Old Latin magna", but there is no evidential basis for this assumption, as it is involves not just a single word change, but a change to a series of words in sequence. Indeed the suggestion is rank nonsense, and ignores the fact that scholars now suggest there were various Latin versions of Hermas concurrent at the same time. Moreover as the Palatine Latin is an "improved" Latin translation, and there would be no reason to make this change, were there not other more authoritative manuscripts which contained "Maximo."

The next fallacy is that "there isn’t anything earlier [than the Palatine] that they could have copied [Sinaiticus] from." This too is rank nonsense, as there were many Greek manuscripts of Hermas in the Levant, where it was popular. Many early Greek fragments of Hermas survive, and a few also evidence "Maximo"(e.g. Bodmer XXXVIII and Aethopic translation).

You seem to be dancing around above.

Tischendorf abandoned his Athous Hermas position, in a wacky and absurd pseudo-retraction, not because of any new linguistic insight, but simply because the 4th-century Sinaiticus was his article of faith (or corruption.) And his previous argument would sink that ship, it would "prove too much".

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

Btw, in one spot I am quoting a web source (salvationandthebible.wordpress.com, no longer up) that is quoting David W. Daniels, with whom I generally agree on all this. You wrongly say they are my words. You claim to be unable to figure out the source, or "End of Quote", but it was very clear:

"But for this specific section I wanted to give you a summarized transcript of one of David Daniels’ YouTube videos which discusses the origins and a few of the changes done to codex Sinaiticus as well as the true age of codex Sinaiticus. So without further ado here is the transcript of this video,"

A section that has

Quote:
End of Quote:

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

This is from Kirk DiVietro, and explains how Hermas goes from the Greeik through to the Palatine Latin to end up with Maximo.

1. Maximo appears no where else in The Shepherd of Hermas. His presence in this verse is inexplicable.
The likelihood of Maximo being original is very slim.

2. Maximo comes from the latin root which means the greatest. A good latin translator might read the Greek megalhv sfovdra (exceedingly great) as latin magna. Magna (great) morphed into maximus (the greatest). It would be easy for a later scribe ‘u’ to morph into an ‘o’. If a Greek translator is working word by word through the Latin rather than understanding the word maximo in context might bring it from latin back to Greek as a proper name Macimo. If Latin text read Maximo he would have had nothing to indicate the original Greek megalhv sfovdra (exceedingly great). Left with a nonsensical sentence he would have assumed the proper name, Maximo was the original reading.

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

The convolution is your attempting to hand-wave and try to explain the common, early Latin text of simply "great tribulation". Which makes complete sense, and does not introduce any fantasy family.