Actually, the claims of Simonides are generally consistent,
You have a very different definition of "consistent" than the dictionary does.
1) When was Simonides born?
a) November 11, 1824 - which is in a biography TWICE that he was pushing with no correction and in an 1861 statement to "The Athenaeum"
b) November 5,1820 - the date Simonides gave AFTER he learned this would make him only 15 years old doing this project
2) What was the reason for Simonides writing the manuscript?
a) a gift to Emperor Nicholas I, first conceived in November 1839 to acknowledge presents he had given (the 1862 letter)
b) in hopes of acquiring a printing press from Nicholas (the old "give to get" theory in the 1863 letter)
This btw would seem to contradict the assertions of the very biography Simonides was pushing, where Benedict was very wealthy.
3) When was the invisible exemplar collated and created?
a) starting in November 1839 after the project was conceived (the 1862 letter)
b) Benedict started it in 1784 when he was 16 years old (the 1863 letter)
Btw - Emperor Nicholas I of Russia didn't rule until 1825, which makes the whole "this project began in 1784 for a person who wasn't even born until 1795" comically hysterical.
4) Who did the collation?
a) Simonides, starting in November 1839 (what he said in 1862)
b) Benedict, starting in 1784, when - according to Avery - Benedict would have been 16 years old (what Simonides said in 1863)
5) What sources were used to produce the manuscript?
a) A Moscow edition of both testaments (only source mentioned in the 1862 letter) but which absolutely doesn't match
b) Imagined sources Avery provides like "maybe Claromontanus or a sister MS"
Note: this "sister manuscript" equivocation is a way to get around the problem of "if Simonides used Claromontanus, common sense says he would have said, 'Yes, I took this reading and that one from there.'"
6) When did Simonides first go to Mt Athos?
a) November 1839 - both his biography AND his letter show this to be his first time there
b) After being informed of obvious problems, Simonides tells us this was his fifth visit to Athos
7) Did Simonides go to Sinai in 1852?
a) there's no way it's possible in the timeline in his biography
b) in his letter (1862), he says he did
c) in a later letter (1863), he suddenly announces he'd been there "two or three times" in an effort to fill in problems
8) When was this alleged manuscript alteration done?
a) Simonides says he saw it in 1852 (first letter in 1862)
b) Kallinikos (assuming for the moment he's a different source - he's not) says 1844 (several times)
Why would Tischendorf "age" the manuscript in 1844? Is this a way of saying he knew from day one it was a fake and tried to pass it off?
9) What was Benedict's ACTUAL ROLE (assuming any role at all)?
a) the biography says he had trouble teaching Simonides due to an eye inflammation (page 6)
b) but the first letter limits Benedict to doing the 23,000 corrections (1862)
Why would you have to "correct" a gift? You don't make this like a rough draft and THEN do it again.
10) When did Benedict move to Athos?
a) the biography Simonides endorsed says 1831
b) the second letter (1863) says 1819
11) Where was Simonides on March 27, 1841?
a) Simonides says he had left Athos in November 1840 and NOT returned by the time he got a letter from Constantius in August 1841
b) but the SART team tells us that the Lampros Catalog entry of that date proves he was there on that date.
I could add this many problematic questions again, but if the point isn't made by now, another 11 questions wouldn't persuade anyone anyway.
and are born out by the "facts on the ground".
You don't even agree with the "facts" Simonides said - well, not all of them.
You just pick the ones that enable a reasonable defense and ignore trying to defend the obviously wrong ones. The fact those only came about after he was cornered really proves nothing more than he didn't know about the MS to have written it.
It is the Tischendorf tissues of lies that are a cover story for brazen thefts and false claims meant not for honest scholarship, but his own glory. You have to be a very clever and deceptive thief to turn around your theft into being a saviour (from fire.) He even came up that creative fabrication fifteen years after the theft!
You mean like when Kallinikos came up with Tischendorf stealing it but NOT telling Simonides for (wait for it) FIFTEEN YEARS????
Once again - I’m not wasting time smashing your objection when my position DOES NOT depend on Tischendorf being a choir boy. So quit throwing in all these red herrings and simply answer the reality that your constant attacks on others don’t really persuade anyone to your views but reveal an inability to formulate a basic argument.
You were asked days ago to give us the narrative that’s true of Simonides, but you can’t even do that simple request, not due to anything other than Simonides had zip to do with this, a fact you know but assume not admitting keeps the case open.