You're the one who holds the contra-scholarship position so this blame shifting is rich.
had been that Simonides came up with the claim of being in Sinai in 1852 as part of the Sinaiticus controversy.
Gee, I only quoted from his FIRST LETTER which elicited the controversy, but I can understand why you wouldn't want to put it that way.
It's the honest way, but I can understand why it embarrasses you.
(Note: I did not take a position on the question.)
Of course you didn't - because you want to believe Tischendorf altered the manuscript, and you have yet to come up with a way to have Tischendorf doing that prior to 1853.
Now we have new information, missed once again by the scholars, written before Sinaiticus was extracted, that puts Simonides in Sinai in 1852.
For those keeping score at home, we NOW have him mastering the art of looking two opposite directions at the same time.
He wants to blame Tischendorf and pretend "nothing the last 150 years matters" but when it's Simonides, well, NOW all of a sudden he's open to new stuff.
Reminder: here only for the SNL skit-level comedy, and SNL ceased being funny 20 years ago.
With no relationship to Sinaiticus.
What evidence do you have to prove this 1852 Sinai travel wrong?
Not my problem.
I have to prove something DIDN'T happen. That's not how things work. This is like me demanding you prove you're NOT a pedophile. Universal negatives by definition cannot be proven.
And you know this, so I guess you're siting there holding a pair of twos and trying to bluff your way through yet another hand.
(That's poker, since I doubt you have any idea what that even means, btw).