Table of Contents
Parent:: RecentCanonAdditions
Is Codex Hierosolymitanus (H.) also a fraud?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Hierosolymitanus
It was discovered in 1873 by Philotheos Bryennios, the metropolitan of
Nicomedia, in the collection of the Jerusalem Monastery of the Most
Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople. He published the texts of the two
familiar Epistles of Clement in 1875, overlooking the Didache, which he
found when he returned to the manuscript.
Codex Hierosolymitanus (H.) contains:
- the Didache
- Epistle of Barnabas
- First Epistle of Clement
- the Second Epistle of Clement
- long version of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch
- and a list of books of the Bible following the order of John Chrysostom.
The choice of books in the context may be significant.
This question naturally arises because:
-
CodexSinaticusGreekFraud (A.) is being pushed on the world as an ancient work when in fact it's author Simondies claims otherwise, and proved that the Epistle of Barnabus in A. is in fact his. He listed a set of acrostics he had put on the manuscripts, and when outsiders finally gained access, all of those places on the manuscript where either missing or disfigured.
-
Greek Codex Vaticanus (B.), known to exist as far back as the time of Erasmus (he rejected it), yet shows the same scribal hand in Mark 8 as the Sinaiticus fraud.
The two codicies A. and B. were used as the basis for Wescott/Hort/Shcaff to claim all of the world's bibles needed replacing by a new work based on this "family" of Codicies. And the fakery of the CodexSinaticusGreekFraud seems to be a collaboration between the Sianai monestary and the Vatican and the Jerusalem Patriarch; Tischendorf was received by the Pope in a personal
audience just before his first visit to Ste. Katherines, and again before "obtaining" the Codex. If A. was false and B. was tampered with, we ask if H. is also false and/or tampered with? (And CodexSinaiticusSyriac?)
Tischendorf visited the Constantinople library of the Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1844 ("on the way back" from Saint Catherines) www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-theft-and-mutilation-of-manuscripts.91/
Tischendorf alludes to a theft of this leaf: Travels in the East, tr. from "Reise in den Orient" by William Edward Shuckard books.google.sc/books?id=KBYEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA274
He was allowed to inspect in the Constantinople library himself, perhaps alone! Given that the Epistle of Barnabas is in Tischendorf/Simondies Codex A. and is known to have been published by Simondies years earlier, we ask:
what are the differences between the two Barnabas versions: H. and A.?
If they are the same, could Tischendorf have deposited a copy of what was later "found" in the Codex A. into the library, or conspired with someone to do so? It was "found" in 1873. We ask:
- Has H. ever been C-14 AMS dated?
- Has it ever been textually critiqued?
In asking "is Codex Hierosolymitanus (H.) is forgery, or tampered with", we ask the corollary:
"what role in the NewWorldBible could the books from H. play"?
To that end, we point out that it has the following writings:
- First Epistle of Clement
- the Second Epistle of Clement
- long version of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch
which are exactly the writings whose authenticity has long been called into question in the debate on:
"Are there any concrete signs of the Pauline letters before Marcion?" DidMarcionWritePaulsLetters
See LGFRCJPStoryLine