One of the great blind spots in modern Sinaiticus science is the idea that what existed in 1844 was not mangled any further.

Here are some points that relate to this question.

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

Uspensky's ms was apparently bound (and thus unbound after 1850). This is even clear in the normal "science" which speaks of a hasty rebinding in 1844 after the Tischendorf "discovery". Uspensky said the ms was in order, which indicates a full binding. Why did Tischendorf, his friends, or somebody, unbind the ms?

Why the trimming, eliminating notes? (See thread discussion Gregory, Aland et al on this point.)
Uspensky did not talk about the Hermas section being truncated, it was likely complete in 1845, even 1850. And thus, the truncation would have occurred because of the difficulties related to the Simonides-Tischendorf Latin origin linguistic controversies. And a big section ends up in the New Finds.

Uspensky discussion of notes and markings should be compared to the actual today. If he did not mention something, it may have occurred later.

Goesche said that the Arabic notes were "very recent"

We can actually see, Before and After, the colouring that occurred on the 1859 section.

How could Simonides and Kallinikos know about the colouring? This is a major support of what we can see with our own eyes.

The introductory material was accused of being removed.

Why all the puzzles about the 3-months with the two mystery Germans in Carion hotel in 1859? And the contradictory stories (e.g. see William George Thorpe who alleges a cover-up on the heist events) as to the events that led to that situation. Are there any hard documents other than the later Tischendorf report compared to the theft report? Was the story about copying the ms. a cover story? If not, was the full copy that took months of labour unceremoniously thrown int he trash? Very odd.

Why was Tischendorf concerned about the stories of Simonides en route to Sinai? And can we get any additional hints from the full and complete Tischendorf correspondence? The simple and Ockham-friendly explanation is that Tischendorf knew that there was already talk in England about Simonides and the monastery and the manuscript situation there (likely related to the CFA). Once such a connection is accepted, at the very least there are additional hands that can be changing the ms. And the normal Simoides dismissal of a petty ad hoc retribution is totally defunct. More fully, the basic outlines of Simonides involvement with the ms is affirmed.

On the CFA 1844 and the CSP 1859. in addition to the obvious difference in colour, the question of the quantity of notes and staining elements should be compared.

Why did Tischendorf "find" the two notes, in that one limited section, in 2 Esdras and Esther that have been a major component of the dating controversy. Since it is acknowledged that those two notes are not from any original hands, they could be especially analyzed for the ink and script likelihood of 1800s versus antiquity (c. 400).

Are there hard reasons why elements like section numbers and quire numbers could not have been late additions? Some elements appear, even in the authenticity scenario, like the Arabic notes or the 2 Esdras and Esther notes, to be totally capable of being added in the 1800s. This can not be considered by the modern science only because of the fiat claim that everything was done by 1844.

In the 1840 production scenario, many elements should be considered as to the possibility of having been added after the initial production.
(e.g The Acts notes that are close to Vaticanus are a possibility. However, this also relates to the book titles, which may, in one spot, appear to have come after the Acts section note. If I remember.)

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


I've read on Sinaiticus apologetic literature (perhas the CSP) that the manuscript suffered no more loss after 1844. However, the historical (Uspensky) and hard evidence contradicts that statement.

I have yet to find even one modern writer who will even consider that anything at all could have happened to change or add to the manuscript after 1844. When it is obvious that the ms. was hanging out in Sinai in various hands (Uspensky, MacDonald, Tischendorf and monastery monks and personal come to mind). Even after it is pointed out that the trimming of notes by Tischendorf is the proper conclusion from Gregory.

Why the blind spot?
Even if the ms. were somehow authentic, from the 4th century, many notes and changes could have occurred in that monastery tiime in the 1800s, after the first discovery.