"Simonides claiming Sinaiticus authorship at Mt. Athos c. 1840" - and where is the c.1840 evidence for that?
The fact that the manuscript showed up in Sinai by 1844 with no provenance, no history, no catalogue.
Uspensky saw the codex in 1845, shredding the Tischendorf saved from fire discovery account.
The manuscript fantasy of its being a 4th-century manuscript.
The youthful, flexible, like-new parchment, with easy-peasy page turning.
Lack of ink-acid degradation.
Lack of foxing.
The lack of handling grime.
Phenomenally good condition.
All defying the historical parchment and ink science.
The polymath Morozov exposed the ancient manuscript charade.
Which was followed by the Ruskis dumping the quires in a box on the British marks.
The perfect New Testament, not one word lost.
Far “too good to be true” if there were 1500 years of heavy use.
Very sensible for an 1840 creation that is NT-centric.
The Mount Athos skills and people at the right place and time:
Benedict, Kallinikos, Simonides, Dionysius
The Spyridon Lambros Athos catalogue corroboration, published in 1895-1900.
The colouring and staining that makes the 1844 Leipzig leaves lighter than the 1859 British Library leaves.
Group of individuals involved, as stated by Simonides, some alive, some deceased by 1862, when the history of the ms. movement was given.
Anthimos, Constantius, Germanus, John Prodromus, Callistratus and Hilarion.
While Cyrillos became the inside man for the Tischendorf thefts.
The Simonides connection to the Sinai monastery shown in his 1857 Memnon, before Sinaiticus controversies.
Simonides and Kallinikos impossible knowledge about the manuscript and monastery.
Describing accurately the Tischendorf 1844 theft-extraction of five quires and part of a sixth.
Describing accurately that the 1859 “loan” was phony, never to retina to Sinai.
Explaining the surreptitious actions of Tischendorf in his manuscript extractions.
Aware of the total lack of history and provenance for the ms. before 1840.
Aware that no ancient catalogues could show the ms.since it arrived in the 1840s.
Stating the paleographical truth that this is a recent manuscript.
Many smaller observations, such as Tischendorf’s bungling attempts to speak Greek.
Describing the coloring in the 1840s that led to the visual distinction that became publicly visible in 2009 by the CSP
The British 1859 leaves have a darker colour and stains, compared to the 1844 Leipzig leaves.
Plus many textual evidences showing that the 4th century theory is false, a textual fantasy:
Eusebian canon conflations and corruptions and specific instances connected to mss.
Advanced late medieval formatting of the Song of Songs.
Three crosses note, a scriptorium note, in a later script.
Accents in Matthew cannot be from before the advent of New Testament accents.
Revelation connections with Andreas and Oecumenius commentary
Trisagion - 8 holies in Rev 4:8 represents a later tradition
cola et commata sense-lines (Uspensky note)
Textual conflations that require later mss for one part of conflations.
Colophons available from exemplars, strategically placed for the 1844 theft.
Connections of Mt. Athos mss. with Sinaiticus text.
Connections of specific manuscripts with SInaiticus corrections.
Lateness of homeoteleutons in Sinaiticus
Abundance of bumbling scribal itacisms, misspellings, solecisms come from modern Greeks not knowing Koine.
An unskilled youth like Simonides c.1840, would be especially likely to write with an abundance of errors.
The Sinaiticus OT and Apocrypha vorlage akin to Alexandrinus, consistent with the Zosima contributions.
The Simonides Athos Hermas text is a medieval Latin-influenced sister of the Sinaiticus Hermas.
(The Latinization was first pointed out by Constantine Tischendorf, before the Sinaiticus text was known.)