This is taken from the BCHF forum discussion.

Here is a list of major Sinaiticus "coincidences":


"Coincidences" abound, everywhere e.g.

The colour of the 1844 and 1859 sections just happens to coincidentally match the:
colouring-tampering attributed to Tischendorf in the 1850s by Kallinikos.
A perfect BEFORE and AFTER match. With one sensible explanation .. (Kallinikos saw the tampering, and it was confirmed 150 years later when the Codex Sinaiticus Project placed the manuscript online.)

In addition, Kallinikos just coincidentally knew other various details, the called shots, of the ms, including the:
1844 theft
1859 bogus-loan, which Kallinikos accurately said would never be returned
bumbling Greek of Tischendorf
lack of any catalogue or provenance
These are elements that simply were not known at the time, when the Tischendorf claims were naively accepted. Simonides knew this because he was closely connected to the manuscript and to St. Catherines, with Kallinikos filling in the dots.

The Sinaiticus ms. just coincidentally is in "phenomenally good condition" (Helen Shenton, BL) with easy-peasy page turning, almost like a 1980s Life Magazine. Try to find any authentic ancient heavily-used mss. from 1500+ years ago that is able to be handled in this manner. This applies to most of the ms, excluding a bit, like water-damaged fragments.

Simonides, Benedict and Kallinikos are just coincidentally shown in the Lambros catalogs of 1895-1900 to be working together in Athos c. 1840. Exactly the time stated for the collaborative efforts on the Sinaiticus ms. Yet in the 1860s the Simonides account was derided on the idea that Kallinikos was supposedly a phantom.

Hermas just happens to coincidentally have been published by Simonides in Greek in 1855, before the 1859 Sinaiticus publication by Tischendorf.
(The ending of Hermas, which became very problematic to Tischendorf after the 1856 Simonides publication, is the one large section thrown into the back room and we find it in the 1975 New Finds.) Tischendorf even retracted allegations against the 1856 Hermas of Simonides because, as the learned Scottish scholar James Donaldson points out, the Tischendorf accusations actually had validity. And while Tischendorf claimed that the Simonides Hermas has linguistic elements that date it to long after the 4th century, Donaldson said those very same accusations apply to the Sinaiticus Hermas.
(And this also applies to Barnabas)

Barnabas just happens to coincidentally have been published in Greek by Simonides in 1843, before the 1859 Sinaiticus publication by Tischendorf. There are solid links between the 1843 Simonides text and the 1859 Sinaiticus text. Ironically, Tischendorf waxed poetic about the discovery of the supposed first Greek Barnabas, when the evidence is that it was an offshoot of the Simonides Athos labours.

Simonides in England, 2,000+ miles away, had full 100% confidence that Sinaiticus had no actual pre-1840 provenance. And "coincidentally" there was none, the ms.only has "poof provenance". (The claim of an "ancient catalog" affirming the ms. was simply bogus.)

The Claromontanus-->Sinaiticus homoeoteleutons just coincidentally show Sinaiticus being made using a ms. from hundreds of years after its own supposed creation. And that Claromontanus manuscript, and its unusual daughter mss, Sangermanensis and Mengeringhausen, were located in our prime locales, Paris, Athos and St. Petersburg, in the period right before Sinaiticus poofed into sight in 1844.


And I would like any of our Sinaiticus-Tischendorf (saved-from-fire) conspiracy theorists to begin to actually work with the history, the ms and the evidences. Including the multiple homoeoteleutons recently discovered from Claromontanus to Sinaiticus.


James Anson Farrer about Simonides and the Shepard of Hermas:

"The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance" - James Anson Farrer

Only the tip of the iceberg.