Remember that the Codex Athous with Maximus is not part of the palimpsest text, it is in the Greek leaves agreed as authentic. So it can not be "from the Alpha to the Omega" Simonides doing a retro-version.
Agreed as authentic only as far back as "fourteenth or fifteenth century, a time when, in the opinion of M. Tischendorf, that version of the Latin into Greek must have been made
," but when "not a single copy [of the Latin] had been found." per Jallabert.
"[As to] the 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 propagation and stopped, or at least slowed down the circulation of its copies, but since this decree only dealt with the canonicity and not with the authenticity or the value of the work, nothing can lead us to suppose that it was violently suppressed. We can believe that from that moment it was 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. How then could it be that in the Middle Ages there had already been no more pleasing examples? I am convinced, for my part, that there were and even still are in the important libraries of the East. In this hypothesis, a translation became useless."
"The one we are talking about, in particular, lacks reason, existence, unless we suppose that it was made by a schoolboy who wanted, by such an exercise, to fortify himself in the knowledge of the two languages. literature of antiquity. But then, the manuscript would probably have a less Greek physiognomy than the one it presents."
Jallabert is a lot of fun.
Latin translations can be difficult.
"a translation of his style" (who is his.)
Actually this is all just hype on your part. Jallabert makes it clear that largely due to the corrupt text, none of Tischendorf's arguments can be conclusive. And as to the Maximus reading, Jallabert thinks it makes more sense (as I do):
p.119 "Besides, is it sure that there was not originally γράφας and Μαξίμω ? These two words in no way distort the meaning of the places where they are found; on the contrary, the second seems to me necessary, or at least very useful, to explain the context . he exhorts him to indulgence towards his wife and his guilty children; 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 simplicity and simplicity have made you forgive; the same will happen to all those who imitate you. Happy are those who practice justice! Finally, he adds according to the old Latin version “ Dices autem: Ecce magna tribu latio venit. Si tibi videtur, iterum nega,” according to the recently corrected Palatine text: “Dicis autem Maximo: Ecce tribulatio supervenit. If placuerit tibi, iterum negaris; and, to the report of the Leip zig edition , 'Ερεϊς δέ Μαξίμω 'Ιδουθλίψις ; ερχεται · εάν σοι φβνη , πάλιν ...”
I confess 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 sense such as this: "You will say to 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 was also to avoid those of the second, if he followed the advice transmitted to Hermas in his visions. As for the two preceding sentences, they make no sense; and, supposing that a copyist or a corrector had found in the Greek text which he would have been commissioned to transcribe or revise, a sentence as insignificant as these two Latin sentences, I would not be astonished that knowingly, and willingly he would have added this Μαξίμω to make sense of His text. This is what often happened in antiquity and in the Middle Ages..."
The context was precisely linguistic arguments that show Athous and Sinaiticus as much later than 4th century.
BS. Unless you reproduce Hort's quote in its entirety, you might as well not bother. I've already researched this quote and it is being taken completely out of context by you.
As for Jallabert, you spin around, still with confusion on the fundamental issues.
To help you, Jallabert does mention the Maximus basic fact, one you pretend to not understand:
“the word maxima which would have been later taken for rnaximo and inserted into the text in Greek characters.”
The dual line came out of the ease of the Latin mix-up, which came forth in the Palatine.
Jallabert merely concedes the possibility of the Tischendorf argument:
"Similarly the word Μαξίμω can come
from what one has read or heard read in Latin, if we follow the Palatine manuscript, 'dicis autem Maximo : Ecce tribulatio, instead of dicis au tem : Maxima ecce tribulatio."
But he doesn't conclude that it does / must come from a translation.
For he counter-hypothesizes
that "could there not have been in these two places a lacuna which suddenly stopped the copyist and forced him, in his Greek transcription, to have recourse for a few passages
, and in particular for the two words in question , to the Latin text lè most generally followed?"
But this is just the first of Jallabert's counter-hypotheses, For he quickly moves onto the next "Besides, is it sure that there was not originally γράφας and Μαξίμω ?" (see above quote from p.119). And in fact, he quite likes the Maximus renditiion, because it imparts sense to an otherwise meaningless passage.
And he concludes by averring "Some will perhaps tell me that I have so far proved only by supposition
. I grant it; but what else did M. Tischendorf do in his dissertation?
So there you have it: just a load of suppositions from Tischendorf,
Very weak arguments not amounting to any proof. No wonder he resiled on discovering Sinaiticus, although he confessed that it was for others to work out whether the original Hermas was in Greek or Latin.