Manuscript evidence for Acts 8:37 out of Nestle's Greek 27th edition!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As they say, a picture (below) is worth a thousand words. Page 345 of NA/27 reveals ancient manuscript evidence from "it" representing all the "Old Latin" (157 AD), predating any Greek evidence, although Minuscule 1739 is a Greek witness that has Acts 8:37 in it, of which scholars have dated back to the 2nd-4th century, (photo evidence below). 1739 was copied copied by a monk named Ephraim from an uncial exemplar from the 4th century. It was discovered by E. von der Goltz in 1879 at Mount Athos. Scholars date 1739 as early as the 2nd century which does line up with the Old Latin, Syriac, and the Peshitta during the same time frame, dating back to the 2nd and 3rd century.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Souter's 1910 Greek New Testament shows a consensus of (ii-iii-iv) century Latin witnesses which also agree with NA/27's Syriac, Coptic, and even the (mae) Egyptian Coptic dating back to the 4th century.
Aside from all the pre-4th century witnesses there is still a large amount of Greek evidence. The evidence in favor of including this verse is quite massive. It is found in the Greek
texts of Stephanus 1550, Beza, and Elzevir. It is in manuscripts E, 4, 36, 88, 97, 103,
104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1739,
1765, 1877, 1891, and others. (Notice NA/27 above "omits" quite a few of these witnesses). Remember, "1739" is a GREEK Category I and II in NA/27 and dates back to 2nd-4th century (see evidence below). More here....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuscule_1739#History
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early church fathers who witness to it's being a part of inspired Scripture are Irenaeus, Cyprian, Chromatius,Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, Pacian, Ambrose, Augustine and Theophylact.
Many church fathers who lived before anything we have in the way of Greek copies directly quote this verse, including Irenaeus 178 A.D., Tertullian 220, Cyprian 258, as well as Ambrosiaster 384, Ambrose 397, Augustine 430, and Venerable Bede of England in 735.
For example, Cyprian (200-258 A.D.) supports the inclusion of verse 36-37 when he says, "In the Acts of the Apostles Treatise 12:3: Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Phillip, If thou believes with all thine heart thou mayest." (The Treatises of Cyprian )
Irenaeus (115-202 AD), Against Heresies 3.12: "Philip declared that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God." (see picture below)
Augustine (354-430 AD), Sermon 49: "The eunuch believed on Christ, and said when they came unto a certain water, See water, who doth hinder me to be baptized? Philip said to him, Dost thou believe on Jesus Christ? He answered, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Immediately he went down with him into the water.
Folks, even with early 2nd-4th century witnesses all over the place, many have presuppositions so strong, that when presented with manuscript evidence, pictures, dates, and references, all they can do is say, quote, "your sources are corrupt". There is not much we can do to help those kind of hearts, they are somewhat proud and stiff to the truth. A little bit of humility and faith is going to have to creep in for them to admit they have been taught wrong. Habakkuk 2:2-4
We did a short video on Acts 8:37 for our youtube viewers and invite you to watch it below on the left. Also Bro. Brandon from 1611.com also disputes James White on this very verse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many scholars link 1739 to the 2nd-4th century of which contains Acts 8:37. Gunther Zuntz (1902-1992), Philip Comfort: "Encountering the Manuscripts" (see below)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Century Codex Glazier also contains Acts 8:37. Titled (mae) in Nestle's apparatus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Ruckman in The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship pp 236-237: “Those who first threw (Acts 8:37) out were P45 and P74, followed by the Cult (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, “C”, the Sahidic, and the Bohairic; and then the Harclean and Peshitta Syriac, after Origen messed with them). It is also missing from cursives 049, 056, 0142, 436, 326, 1241, 1505, 2127, 181, 81, 88 and several others.
“To offset this vast array of African scholarship produced by half-baked apostates, we have the verse, in whole or in part, in the works of Irenaeus (190 A.D.), Tertullian (200 A.D.), Cyprian (255A.D.), Pacian (370 A.D.), Ambrose, uncial manuscript E, Old Latin manuscripts, Old Syriac manuscripts, plus the Armenian and Georgian translations. It is also found in cursive 629...(from) the dates of the Church Fathers listed above, we find the verse being quoted 100 to 200 YEARS BEFORE SINAITICUS OR VATICANUS WERE WRITTEN".
p 331 states that Acts 8:37 “has an unbroken chain of testimony from the Old Latin (second century)...to the present time.”Reviewing the evidence therefore, one finds that Acts 8:37, like 1 John 5:7-8, fulfills at least 5 of Burgon’s 7 tests.
In reference to the “un-Lukan” grammar of the Ethiopian’s confession, why wouldn’t it be “un-Lukan” if indeed it is? The man speaking was an AFRICAN. The man writing the Book of Acts was a JEW! See Romans 3:1-2. Even though our critic is referring specifically to grammar, I am reminded of Dr Hills’s statement, “Arguments from literary style are notoriously weak"!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 8:37 is in the Byzantine Greek text used by the Orthodox Greek Churches all over the world today. Here is the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole verse is also found in Old Latin manuscripts from the textline that predates any Greek manuscripts, including the Old Latin texts of ar, c, dem, e, gig, h, l, m, ph, r, t, w. Even the notes in critical text editions tell us that this verse existed in the Old Latin copies, the Coptic Middle Egyptian version, the Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta (see below) and Armenian early Bible versions. It is also found in the Vulgate Clementine. In light of all this evidence, we can see there would be no need for later scribes to add this verse, because it was already there. There would however be every reason for scribes to omit this verse based on 3rd century water baptism teachings.
Bible Scholar, Dr. J. A. Alexander (24 April 1809 – 28 January 1860), in his commentaries on Acts (2 vols., 1857) provides a possible answer. By the end of the third century it had become common practice to delay the baptism of Christian converts to assure that they had truly understood their commitment to Christ and were not holding to one of the various heretical beliefs prevalent at that time. It is possible that a scribe, believing that baptism should not immediately follow conversion, omitted this passage from the text, which would explain its absence in many of the Greek manuscripts that followed. Certainly this conjecture is as possible as the various explanations offered by those who reject the reading. We also know that even from Jerome and others, that "omissions" were common place between the 2nd-4th centuries. Of coarse corruptions were already taking place in 60 A.D. as the Apostle Paul was warning the Church in II Corinthians 2:17.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of coarse we can keep it simple and expose the torn and shredded P45 of which even Jesus and Philip (Philip being mentioned 5 times), is supposed to be in these verses, (good luck finding them), and the corrupted Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Let's examine these so-called older and better manuscripts. With just a little bit of Independent Research, one can see that modern scholarship is build upon a house of cards.
(also known as Codex B)
Codex Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative of the Minority Texts, although it is responsible for over 36,000 changes that appear today in the new versions.
This manuscript was "found" in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held, and from whence it received its name. It is written on expensive vellum, a fine parchment originally from the skin of calf or antelope. Some authorities claim that it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine; hence its beautiful appearance and the expensive skins which were used for its pages. But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian partner Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and amendments.
The corrupt and unreliable nature of Codex B is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon: "The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…"
According to The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, "It should be noted . . . that there is no prominent Biblical (manuscripts) in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in (Codex) B."
Consider these facts and oddities relating to the Codex Vaticanus:
-
It was corrected by revisers in the 8th, 10th, and 15th centuries (W. Eugene Scott, Codex Vaticanus, 1996).
-
The entire manuscript has been mutilated...every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible. Dr. David Brown observes: "I question the 'great witness' value of any manuscript that has been overwritten, doctored, changed and added to for more than 10 centuries." (The Great Unicals).
-
In the Gospels it leaves out 749 entire sentences and 452 clauses, plus 237 other words, all of which are found in hundreds of other Greek manuscripts. The total number of words omitted in Codex B in the Gospels alone is 2,877 as compared with the majority of manuscripts (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 75).
-
Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, but a blank space is left for that section of Scripture. The following testimony is by John Burgon, who examined Vaticanus personally: “To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is unquestionably the oldest we possess, St. Mark’s Gospel ends abruptly at the eighth verse of the sixteenth chapter, and that the customary subscription (Kata Mapkon) follows, is true; but it is far from being the whole truth. It requires to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of the next ensuing column to that which contained the concluding words of the preceding book, has at the close of St. Mark’s Gospel deviated from his else invariable practice. HE HAS LEFT IN THIS PLACE ONE COLUMN ENTIRELY VACANT. IT IS THE ONLY VACANT COLUMN IN THE WHOLE MANUSCRIPT -- A BLANK SPACE ABUNDANTLY SUFFICIENT TO CONTAIN THE TWELVE VERSES WHICH HE NEVERTHELESS WITHHELD. WHY DID HE LEAVE THAT COLUMN VACANT? What can have induced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule? The phenomenon (I believe I was the first to call distinct attention to it) is in the highest degree significant, and admits only one interpretation. The older manuscript from which Codex B was copied must have infallibly contained the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed to leave them out -- and he obeyed; but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam rei. Never was a blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the Vatican Codex is made to refute itself even while it seems to be bearing testimony against the concluding verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, by withholding them; for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary circumstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By leaving room for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the end of fifteen centuries and a half, a more ancient witness than itself.” (Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of St. Mark Vindicated, 1871, pp. 86-87)
-
Similar to Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus identifies itself as a product of gnostic corruption in John 1:18, where “the only begotten Son” is changed to “the only begotten God,” thus perpetuating the ancient Arian heresy that disassociates the Son of God Jesus Christ from God Himself by claiming that the Word was not the same as the Son. John’s Gospel identifies the Son directly with the Word (John 1:1, 18), but by changing "Son" to "God" in verse 18, this direct association is broken.
-
Linguistic scholars have observed that Codex Vaticanus is reminiscent of classical and Platonic Greek, not Koine Greek of the New Testament (see Adolf Deissman's Light of the Ancient East). Nestle admitted that he had to change his Greek text (when using Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) to make it "appear" like Koine Greek.
-
Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and exposes the mass as totally useless as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bible scholarship of the past 150 years has placed much attention on a very small number of manuscripts. While there are over 5000 known New Testament manuscripts, attention has been placed on less than ten. Of these, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have been exalted as the “oldest and best” manuscripts. The oldest claim has been disproved elsewhere. This document will focus on the nature of these two favored manuscripts. Sinaiticus has been recently made available to all on the internet by the Codex Sinaiticus Project, with the mainstream media and general Christians fawning over this “world’s oldest Bible.” This manuscript, in conjunction with Codex Vaticanus, form the basis for most modern Bible translations. However, these two manuscripts differ substantially from the text of the bulk of the manuscripts. Thus, the public needs to know the truth about these manuscripts.
Contrary to what has been taught in most seminaries, these two manuscripts are worthless, and hopelessly corrupt. Dean John Burgon, a highly respected Bible scholar of the mid to late 1800’s, wrote of these manuscripts, “The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.”1 These documents are both of dubious origin. It has been speculated by some scholars that one or both were produced by Eusebius of Caesarea on orders of Emperor Constantine2. If this is true, then these manuscripts are linked to Eusibus’s teacher Origen of Alexandria, both known for interpreting Scripture allegorically as opposed to literally. Scholars have designated these manuscripts as Alexandrian, linking them with Alexandria, Egypt, the region responsible for early heresies such as Gnosticism and Arianism. Both are dated in the mid to late fourth century.
Vaticanus is the sole property of the Vatican; it has been a part of the Vatican library since at least 1475. It’s history previous is unknown. It was written by three scribes, and has been corrected by at least two more3. Vaticanus adds to the Old Testament the apocryphal books of Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Dean Burgon describes the poor workmanship of Vaticanus: Codex B [Vaticanus] comes to us without a history: without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence.4 The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible concurs, “It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B [Vaticanus].”5 Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, yet there is a significant blank space here for these verses.6 Sinaiticus also lacks these verses, but has a blank space for them.7 These two manuscripts are the only Greek manuscripts that omit these verses!
The Sinaiticus was discovered by Constantine Tischendorf in the Greek Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine, on the Sinai peninsula. Monasteries are known for exceptional libraries, and scholars would often visit to conduct research. St. Catherine’s is no exception. From the monastery’s website:
When Egeria visited the Sinai around the year 380, she wrote approvingly of the way the monks read to her the scriptural accounts concerning the various events that had taken place there. Thus we can speak of manuscripts at Sinai in the fourth century. It is written of Saint John Climacus that, while living as a hermit, he spent much time in prayer and in the copying of books. This is evidence of manuscript production at Sinai in the sixth century. The library at the Holy Monastery of Sinai is thus the inheritor of texts and of traditions that date to the earliest years of a monastic presence in the Sinai. In earlier times, manuscripts were kept in three different places: in the north wall of the monastery, in the vicinity of the church, and in a central location where the texts were accessible.8 This monastery has a library full of old manuscripts. One would then assume that Tischendorf found the prized Sinaiticus one a library shelf, hidden among other manuscripts. Well, this is not exactly the case. He found it in a trash can, waiting to be burnt! Sound incredible? Tischendorf gives his personal testimony:
It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen.9
Why would the monks of St. Catherine’s thrown out such a valuable manuscript? Perhaps because of it’s low quality transcription and it’s “heavily corrected text.”10 Concerning it’s sloppy penmanship, Burgon writes, “On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.11” His colleague, Frederick H. Scrivener, goes into detail: Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled: while that gross blunder technically known as Homoeoteleuton…whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament…Tregelles has freely pronounced that “the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough.”12
Sinaiticus has also been corrected by “…at least ten revisers between the IVth and XIIth centuries…”13 The Codex Sinaiticus Project readily admits:
No other early manuscript of the Christian Bible has been so extensively corrected. A glance at the transcription will show just how common these corrections are. They are especially frequent in the Septuagint portion. They range in date from those made by the original scribes in the fourth century to ones made in the twelfth century. They range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences. 14 The figure below gives an example of Sinaiticus’ many corrections. Example of Sinaiticus Corrections15 As you can see, it looks like a much-corrected rough draft. Which is the Word of God, the original text, one of the many corrections, or none of the above?
Sinaiticus also includes spurious, uninspired, apocryphal books, including 2 Esdras,Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas are added. New lay interest in this manuscript may be intended to create demand for an English translation of it. An 1861 translation of Sinaiticus’s New Testament has been placed online, including the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.16 These two false writings (Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas) promote New Age and Satanism17. Is a resurgence in public interest in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus intended to bring acceptance of heretical works like these into Christian circles?
As for the text of these two manuscripts, it is notably an inferior text (when one is able to determine the true text in the light of all the corrections). Scholar Dean Burgon writes,
As for the origin of these two curiosities, it can perforce only be divined from their contents. That they exhibit fabricated Texts in demonstrable. No amount of honest copying,-persevered in for any number of centuries, -could by possibility have resulted in two such documents. Separated from one another in actual date by 50, perhaps by 100 years, they must needs have branched off from a common corrupt ancestor, and straightway become exposed continuously to fresh depraving influences. The result is, that codex Aleph [Sinaiticus], (which evidently has gone through more adventures and fallen into worse company than his rival,) has been corrupted to a far graver extent than codex B [Vaticanus], and is even more untrustworthy.18
Why would one of the top Bible scholars of his day make such remarks of manuscripts considered the “oldest and best” by others? Burgon had personally examined these two manuscripts, and noted that their text differed greatly form that of 95% of all manuscripts. When examining the Gospels as found in Vaticanus, Burgon found 7578 deviations from the majority, with 2370 of them being serious. In the Gospels of Sinaiticus, he found 8972 deviations, with 3392 serious ones.19 He also checked these manuscripts for particular readings, or readings that are found ONLY in that manuscript. In the Gospels alone, Vaticanus has 197 particular readings, while Sinaiticus has 443.20 A particular reading signifies one that is most definitely false. Manuscripts repeatedly proven to have incorrect readings loose respectability. Thus, manuscripts boasting significant numbers of particular readings cannot be relied upon.
These two manuscript witnesses constantly disagree with the majority of the manuscript evidence, showing them to be suspect witnesses. The Ten Commandments prohibit false testimony (Ex 20:16). The Bible warns of false witnesses: “And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.” (Mark 14:55-56). The telling sign of false witnesses is a disagreement in their testimony. It will be seen that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not pass the false witness test. While disagreeing with the majority text, they also heavily disagree among each other. Burgon observed: “…they render inconsistent testimony in every verse…”21 and “…it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree…”22 Herman Hoskier did a full collation of these two manuscripts in the Gospels, and counted the following disagreements: AND THESE ARE JUST THE FOUR GOSPELS!
Disagreements between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus 23
Matthew 656, Mark 567, Luke 791, John 1022, TOTAL 3036
Therefore, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are worthless manuscripts. They display horrible penmanship, and have been subject to many correctors. They disagree with the vast majority of manuscript evidence, and even among each other. They are false witnesses of the Word of God. The text found therein is not the preserved Word of God, because it hasn’t been preserved. If it was the true Word of God, it would have been readily available to all generations. Burgon explains, I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God’s promise [of preservation] has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked by a German critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival to that neglect; whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them.24 These ancient MSS owe their preservation not to the providence of God, but to the neglect of man. In these last days, Satan is doing everything in his power to prepare men for the great deception of the Antichrist. As Sinaiticus has been exalted in the public’s eye by the Codex Sinaiticus Project, I would not be surprised if Vaticanus is also exalted and placed online for all to see and venerate. These manuscripts may be the driving force to get “Protestants” to accept the Apocrypha as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, books so heretical that even the Roman Catholic Church does not accept them as Scripture. We need to be alert, and not fall for these manuscript idols. We also need to be aware that most Bible versions, other than the KJV, rely heavily on these manuscripts. The NKJV, while using the correct text, includes “alternate readings” from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the margin. (Such as “The oldest MSS. say…”) We need to reject these for the tried and true King James Version.
1 Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised. London: John Murray, 1883, pg 315
2 T. C. Skeat, The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus and Constantine. JTS 50 (1999), pp. 583–625.
3 Benigni, Umberto. “Codex Vaticanus.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 24 Jul. 2009 .
4 Burgon, John William. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. Oxford and London: James Parker and Co., 1871, pg. 73
5 Gehman, Henry Snyder and John D. Davis. The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Westminster Press, 1970. Pg 792
6 Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses, pp 86-87
7 See Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses, opening pages, for a photograph of this position in Sinaiticus
8 http://www.sinaimonastery.com/en/index.php?lid=94
9 von Tischendorf, Constantine. Narrative of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript, pg 23. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/tischendorf-sinaiticus.html
10 http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/
11 Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, pg 75
12 Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose. A full collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the received text of the NewTestament. Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co., 1864, pg xv http://books.google.com/books?id=CNmOa7HaS6EC&pg=PP23&dq=%22begun+and+immediately+cancelled%22
13 Burgon, Revision Revised, pg 13
14 http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/significance.aspx
15 http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/transcription.aspx
17 See G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions. Ararat, VA: A.V Publications Corp., 1993. pp 559-580
18 Burgon, Revision Revised, pg 318
19 Ibid., pp 12, 14
20 Ibid., pg 14
21 Ibid., pg 31
22 Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses, pg 78
23 Hoskier, H. C., Codex B and Its Allies, a Study and an Indictment, London, 1914, p.1.
24 Burgon, John William and Edward Miller, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels. London: George Bell and Sons, 1896, pg 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, please watch this great video by David Daniels about Codex Sinainticus, called "Which part is Scripture"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
