Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

Tischendorf's issue was the Athos text as being derived from the Palatine Latin.
There certainly was an issue, as raised by Tischendorf, of Athos being retro-translated from the Latin by Simonides or his colleages;

It could not apply Simonides' actions to the Athous manuscript 3 first pages, for which the ms. was in Leipzig and nobody doubted it as authentic.

Thus it (retroversion and Maximus) did not apply to any actions of Simonides, only the historical development of the Greek text.

Beyond that, yes, Tischendorf saw this Greek text as (largely) "derived from the Palatine Latin". He never countered his own arguments, he simply wanted them hidden because they would sink Sinaiticus. His "retraction" of sorts is a transparent joke.
 
It could not apply Simonides' actions to the Athous manuscript 3 first pages, for which the ms. was in Leipzig and nobody doubted it as authentic.
Thus it (retroversion and Maximus) did not apply to any actions of Simonides, only the historical development of the Greek text.
There was a real dispute between Anger and Tischendorf over whether the whole of the Athos Hermas of Simonides was authentic.

"M. Anger maintain[ed] that the manuscript was a copy of the original of Hermas, and M. Tischendorf claim[ed] that it was only a translation made in the Middle Ages from after the Latin version . It could not be said that the manuscript was, as a whole , a translation of his style ; there was not even room for such a question , although it had already been put , for , in the opinion of M. Tischendorf , the answer was not doubtful. The learned editor of the first manuscripts of the New Testament had discovered in the palimpsest of Mount Athos , which he had before his eyes with his first copy , too many Greek expressions peculiar to the Middle Ages not to agree that M. Simonides had not translated from the alpha to the omega the Latin book which we know under the name of Pasteur , and which dates back to the first years of the second century of the Christian era . But was this manuscript a translation made in the Middle Ages from the Latin text , which was itself only a version of the primitive Greek , or was it the manuscript in the authentic of the Pastor of Hermas ? Such was the question which naturally presented itself to his mind and to which he wished to give a positive solution"

p.8 Hermas et Simonidés. Étude sur la controverse récemment soulevée en Allemagne par la découverte d'un manuscrit grec. Thèse, etc.​

P. J JALLABERT​

Paris, Lyon, Corbeil [printed], 1858.​


I am just working my way through this book to find out what the author makes of it.

Beyond that, yes, Tischendorf saw this Greek text as (largely) "derived from the Palatine Latin". He never countered his own arguments, he simply wanted them hidden because they would sink Sinaiticus. His "retraction" of sorts is a transparent joke.
Well Tischendorf's arguments were clearly opposed by Anger, and also SImonides, of course. And this was just after the Tischendorf had exposed the pious fraud of the "palimpsest of Uranius, very skilfully made, but which , according to the learned M. Tischendorf, by the form of the characters and the nature of the parchment, betrayed a comparatively recent origin . This did not prevent these eminent minds from being quietly trapped...It was necessary for Mr. Tischendorf to come and open the eyes of his colleagues and prove to them with henceforth invincible evidence that the palimp sest of Uranius was only a more or less skilful compilation of hieroglyphs." (same source)

So we can see the mindset of Tischendorf full of suspicion against Simonides.
 
[cont.]

A fairly curt conclusion: Tischendorf's arguments are .... just speculation.

"Telle est ma conclusion . Le manuscrit apporté de l’Athos par M. Simonidès est la copie , et non la traduclion de l'ouvrage d'Hermas, disciple de saint Paul , æuvre 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 ran ger parmi les Pères grecs , dont on possède le texte primilif, sauf à nous réserver le droit de le chas ser d'une place dont il serait indigne , si nous ve nions un jour à découvrir qu'il ne fut jamais qu'un geai paré des plumes volées au paon .
Vu et lu en Sorbonne le 1er juin 1858 "

"This is my conclusion. The manuscript brought from Athos by M. Simonidès is the copy, and not the translation, of the work of Hermas, disciple of Saint Paul, a very important work for ascertaining the state in which were found, 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 cannot 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 for ourselves the right to chase him from a place of which he would be unworthy, if we would come one day to discover that he was never anything but a jay adorned with the feathers stolen from the peacock.
Seen and read at the Sorbonne on June 1, 1858"

So .... Tischendorf's arguments for Simonides having produced a retro-version from the Latin are rated as just speculation by P. J JALLABERT in 1858. So much for you asserting that they are "good arguments."

More later...
 
There was a real dispute between Anger and Tischendorf over whether the whole of the Athos Hermas of Simonides was authentic.

"M. Anger maintain[ed] that the manuscript was a copy of the original of Hermas, and M. Tischendorf claim[ed] that it was only a translation made in the Middle Ages from after the Latin version . It could not be said that the manuscript was, as a whole , a translation of his style ; there was not even room for such a question , although it had already been put , for , in the opinion of M. Tischendorf , the answer was not doubtful. The learned editor of the first manuscripts of the New Testament had discovered in the palimpsest of Mount Athos , which he had before his eyes with his first copy , too many Greek expressions peculiar to the Middle Ages not to agree that M. Simonides had not translated from the alpha to the omega the Latin book which we know under the name of Pasteur , and which dates back to the first years of the second century of the Christian era . But was this manuscript a translation made in the Middle Ages from the Latin text , which was itself only a version of the primitive Greek , or was it the manuscript in the authentic of the Pastor of Hermas ? Such was the question which naturally presented itself to his mind and to which he wished to give a positive solution"

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.

Jallabert is a lot of fun.

Latin translations can be difficult.
"a translation of his style" (who is his.)
 
And it is likely you only learned of Memnon from PBF.

Nope.

Learned about it through my own research. You just posted a link to it on Google.

Nice attempt to try to cover for the incoherent posting of Maestroh.

Maximus is actually an important issue, as a flagship of the Tischendorf strong linguistic argumentation that is one of many torpedoes into Ship Sinaiticus.

Nope.

My opinion, simply stated.
 
Nope.
My opinion, simply stated.

Tischendorf clearly felt it was a strong argument.

(His Sinaiticus protectia “retraction” was an unwieldy joke, of zero substance.)

Then it was discussed by Anger, Dindorf, Simonides and Jallabert, before Sinaiticus.

The best analysis would include all the Tischendorf linguistic arguments, that has never been done. At the moment, we are looking at another Sinaiticus book with its own fascinating manuscript connections, so Hermas is a-waiting.

==========

interestingly, the Anger and Dindorf 1856 Greek Hermas does not have the Maximus error.
 
Last edited:
Tischendorf clearly felt it was a strong argument.

(His Sinaiticus protectia “retraction” was an unwieldy joke, of zero substance.)

Then it was discussed by Anger, Dindorf, Simonides and Jallabert, before Sinaiticus.

The best analysis would include all the Tischendorf linguistic arguments, that has never been done. At the moment, we are looking at another Sinaiticus book with its own fascinating manuscript connections, so Hermas is a-waiting.

==========

interestingly, the Anger and Dindorf 1856 Greek Hermas does not have the Maximus error.

My opinion is, this is a non-issue.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

...
"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."

So since the Sinaiticus section is essentially that of the Codex Athous, it had to be Latin into Greek.

1938 - Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, Milne and Skeat
"The text of the Codex Athous as printed by Lake has been used in this conjectural restoration, a text from which the Sinaiticus varies in small details but apparently not in substance"

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

Konrad Martin Heide

"Labilität und Festigkeit des überlieferten Textes des Neuen Testaments und des Pastor Hermae, demonstriert an wichtigen Textzeugen” in: Sacra Scripta VII (2009), 65–97

The Reliability of the New Testament (2011)
6. Assessing the Stability of the Transmitted Texts of the New Testament and the Shepherd of Hermas
https://books.google.com/books?id=UaRkR3WI0rYC&pg=PA152

"Despite its ugly appearance, hardly recognisable accents, frequent inconsistency in thought and other scribal blunders, the Codex Athous provides a text, from which the Sinaiticus varies in small details but apparently not in substance, and has solely managed to preserve the correct text at certain places. Similar can be said of the Codex Lavra K96. ”

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

You try hard to complicate what is simple.

Jallabart is correctly saying that Athous and Sinaiticus are not early original Greek texts.

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

The Palatine Latin text was discovered and published in the same year that Jallabert wrote, thus giving additional support.
 
Last edited:
More on Jallabert. It's noteworthy that on p.88 he comes down in favor of the Pauline Hermas (Epistle to the Romans 16:14 "Salute Asyncritus , Phlegon , Hermas, etc.,") as being the original author (following Origen), thus disregarding the Muratorian fragment's assertion that Hermas was the brother of Pope Pius I. This fragment is imputed as reproducing a pious fraud

Apparently the synonymity of name between the brother of Pope Pius I and the Shepherd of Hermas was found convenient to ascribe this brother with apostolic authority in fixing the day of Easter as Sunday. From Pope Damasus (1) Under the pontificate of Pius I" Hermes, his brother, wrote a work in which we see that an angel having appeared to him in the form of pastor gave him the order to have the feast of Easter celebrated on Sunday .” Then a decretal of Pius I himself (2). “We want all the faithful to know that Easter must be celebrated on Sunday every year. We are in the habit of doing so; but as there are some who hesitate to imitate us, the Lord has raised up among us a doctor of the faith, by the name of Hermes, versed in the reading of our holy books, to whom an angel has shown himself in the disguise of a pastor to command him to tell us that the feast of Easter must be celebrated on Sunday. We therefore order you, in the name of our apostolic authority, to follow the same custom.
 
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.

The corrupt text is what Tischendorf emphasizes (and this applies to Sinaiticus as well.)

So your explanation is not at all logical. Whether this is Jallabert, or you, or both.
 
..... it had to be Latin into Greek.
You can't call Tischendorf a dupe one day, and an authority the next. Simonides, your buddy, repudiates Tischendorf, as does Anger and Jallabert. Finally Tischendorf himself resiles from his own arguments, saying "he does not know." Further modern authorities do not find the Greek text unoriginal.

So stop promoting your own theories that find no support from anyonen else as facts.

The corrupt text is what Tischendorf emphasizes (and this applies to Sinaiticus as well.)

So your explanation is not at all logical. Whether this is Jallabert, or you, or both.
The corruption had occurred long ago. As I said modern research (Sémitismes et latinismes dans le Pasteur d'Hermas" von A Hilhorst Erschienen 1976)
does not find the Greek text unoriginal: i.e. no evidence of a Latin translation.
 
Not at all the issue.
Maximus came from the Greek manuscript, Codex Athous Grigoriou 96, it has nothing to do with a reverse translation by Simonides.

Interestingly, the 1856 Anger-Dindorf Greek Hermas edition has a correct Greek text at this spot, without Maximus, and with the great tribulation.

Three absolutely fake Hermas texts alongside (another fake) the (stolen leaves, I might add) used for the Uranius palimpsest history text, all trying to be passed off as genuine in Memnon:

  • Doesn't set off any red flags? 🚩
  • Doesn't set off any alarms for you? 🚨
  • Doesn't make you suspicious 🤔 in anyway of Simonides that he might be lying about his other claims?

Nothing registering at all?
 
Last edited:
HERMAE PASTOR. GRAECĊE,
PRIMUM EDIDERUNT
ET INTERPRETATIONEM VETEREM LATINAM
EX CODICIBUS EMENDATAM ADDIDERUNT

RUDOLPHUS ANGER
ET
GUILIELMUS DINDORF,
PROFESSORES LIPSIENSES.
1856

In the above (Latin doc.) R. Anger stresses that the text of the first three original leaves from Athos of the Hermas manuscript, i.e. the codicis Lipsiensis (codex Leipzig), is the original Greek and not a medieval Latin translation because it agrees with Greek quotes from Hermas by the ECFs, e.g. in pseudo-Athananius etc.

"Quibus argumentis quum satis superque doceatur, in codice Lips. ipsum textum archetypum, non interpretationem ex Latino demum factam contineri, non est quod alia addamus, quibus eadem res demonstratur."

When these arguments are sufficiently taught above, in the codex Lips. is the original text itself, and not an interpretation made from the Latin; there is no need for us to add others, by which the same thing is shown.

Everything that Tischendorf later speculated upon is supposition, per Jallabert,
 
Back
Top