What a Modern Movie Can Teach Us About How John 8:1-11 was Remembered

Not part of the Scriptural account.

With the popularity of programs like The Chosen, perhaps as many Americans get their impressions about what happened during Jesus’ ministry from what they see onscreen as much as what they read off the pages of their Bibles.  Which is why the depiction of Jesus’ interaction with the adulteress in the movie Son of God is a bit concerning.

Some scholars, such as James Hamilton, insist that we shouldn’t treat this episode, usually found in John 7:53-8:11, as part of the Bible at all.  I disagree in my book Jesus and the Adulteress and offer there a theory about how early scribes mistakenly removed the passage.  But today, as Easter 2026 approaches, I want to look into how Son of God re-imagines this episode.

The historical Jesus never did
what he does in this scene.

The adulteress is brought to Jesus in the 22^nd minute of the show – but in a scene that’s set in a wilderness, not in the temple as stated in the Gospel of John 8:2.  In Son of God, her daughter is with her, calling the adulteress “Mother” – an unnecessary embellishment that lacks any Scriptural basis whatsoever.

When questioned by a religious legalist, Jesus – already standing – does not put his finger to the ground.  Instead he picks up a stone from the ground and walks around.  Then he raises it over his head as if he intends to throw it at the adulteress – another unnecessary visual embellishment with absolutely no Scriptural warrant.

He says, “I’ll give my stone to the first man who tells me that he has never sinned” – a deviation from “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” in John 8:7 (EHV).  Then Jesus, instead of asking the adulteress about her accusers, simply tells her, “Go and sin no more” which accurately echoes part of what he says in John 8:11.  She says “Thank you.  Thank you.”  Jesus then kneels and kisses her on her head – another unnecessary an Scripturally unwarranted embellishment.

Then she stands and a young child runs to her and hugs her, and the scene ends.

Have you assumed that the scribes and Pharisees
were holding stones and dropped them?

            It occurs to me that if a modern-day screenwriter can start with John 7:53-8:11 and end up with what we see in Son of God, it is not difficult at all to picture the early writer of the Didascalia Apostolorum adding new details in the course of recollecting the interaction between Jesus and the adulteress in the course of critiquing the hard-heartedness of some church leaders.

            Let’s look at the seventh chapter of the Didascalia Apostolorum, a Syriac text which is generally assigned to the 200s:  “If you do not receive the one who repents, because you are without mercy, you shall sin against the Lord God; for you do not obey our Savior and our God, to do as he also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in His hands, departed.  But he, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her, ‘Have the elders condemned thee, my daughter?’  She said to him, ‘No, Lord.’  And he said unto her, ‘Go your way; neither do I condemn thee.’  In him therefore, our Savior and King and God, is your pattern, O bishops.” 

Although this is far from a precise rendering of John’s account, when these words are entered into Google’s search-bar, Google’s artificial intelligence Gemini states, “The quote provided is a strong exhortation regarding mercy, repentance, and the forgiveness of sins, echoing the spirit of Jesus' interaction with the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11).” 

            If it is granted that the Didascalia’s author was recollecting from the Gospel of John, we have here patristic testimony that is comparable in date – using Brent Nongbri’s re-dating of Papyrus 75 – to the earliest manuscript evidence of the non-inclusion of the pericope adulterae. Nongbri wrote (in 2016 in Journal of Biblical Literature, in the article Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (P75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament) that “we should seriously consider the possibility that p75 was also produced in the fourth century.”  Such an assessment overturns the popular view, held by the late Philip Comfort, that P75 was made in the late 100s or early 200s.  The catalogue of witnesses in the Nestle-Aland 27^th edition of NTG simple assigned a “III” to papyrus 75, which could be any time in the 200s.  Which tends to expose as lies or at least as exaggerations the claims of those who have said that the story of the adulteress originated as a late "floating anecdote."



_______________ 
The movie Son of God directed by Christopher Spencer is copyrighted by ©Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation 2014 All rights reserved.  

Hand to Hand Combat: D versus 505 in Mark 5

            Today, let’s compare the accuracy of Codex Bezae (D, 05) to medieval minuscule 505 (Harley MS 5538 at the British Library, from the 1100s).  Bart Ehrman has heralded Codex Bezae as “one of our oldest manuscripts” and D. C. Parker has given it a production date around the year 400 (although previous researched gave it a production-date somewhat later).  If a production-date around 400 or 500 is accepted, it ought to have the more accurate text, compared to a manuscript made 500 years later, right?  Nope.  The Gospels-text in Codex Bezae is one of the most inaccurate transcriptions that can be found in any Greek manuscript. 

           The main reason for this is that Codex Bezae’s text is “Western.”  The Western text is a paraphrastic text that developed in the second century.  The individuals who made it were more concerned with conveying the meaning of the text than with preserving its original form – possibly because they were transmitting not only the Greek text of the Gospels, but also the Latin text of the Gospels.   It should be understood that “Western” does not mean that this form of the text originated in the West.  The use of the term “Western” is only meant to convey that it became more popular in the West (especially in the Old Latin Gospels) than elsewhere.

            Codex Bezae is a Greek-Latin manuscript – each page with Greek text is followed by approximately the same passage in Latin on the following page – and occasionally, the Western text has been paraphrased.  (Paraphrasing could be done not only by the scribe of this particular manuscript, but by scribes much earlier in the transmission of its text.)  For example, in Mark 7:19b, the Latin text in Codex Bezae says (after the spelling is tidied up), “Sed in uentrem, et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas.”  This is not unusual; the Vulgate text edited by Wordsworth and White says the same thing.  But on the accompanying page of Codex Bezae with Greek text, where most manuscripts (including B A L Π K M) read ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, Codex D’s text reads instead ὀχετὸν ἐξέρχεται (and 7:19 begins Mark 7:19 with οὐ γὰρ εἰσέρχεται).  That is, excrement doesn’t just go into a latrine; it goes into the sewer (an ὀχετὸν is a sewer-drain).
            One might speculate that the Western paraphraser lived in a city with sewers, rather than in the countryside with latrines (or that he made the paraphrase for people who did so); the thing to see is that the Western Text has been paraphrased.

            Now let’s see who made the more accurate text:  the early Western paraphraser, whose work is echoed in Codex Bezae, or Byzantine copyists who transmitted the text found in GA 505.  (And along the way, we might ask ourselves, “Does it look like the Byzantine Text had the Western text as a source?)  The arena for today’s comparison is Mark 5:25-34 – the account of Jesus healing the woman (known traditionally as Saint Veronica) who had been afflicted with a bloody hemorrhage for 12 years.

            The usual rules for hand-to-hand combat apply:  nomina sacra contractions are not counted as variants; transpositions are merely noted; additions, deletions, and substitutions are counted letter-by-letter, and the standard of comparison is the 27^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece.  However, I will make an adjustment due to one especially questionable reading in the N-A compilation (near the end of the analysis).

Mark 5:25-34 in Codex Bezae

25 – D has τις after γυνη (+3)

25 – D transposes to ετη ιβ

26 – D had η instead of και at the beginning (+1, -3)

26 – D does not have παρ before εαυτης (-3)

26 – D reads ωφελιθεισα instead of ωφεληθεισα (+1, -1)

26 – D reads επι instead of εις (+2, -2)

26 – D does not have ελθουσα (-7)

27 – D reads πε instead of περι.  The missing letters have been supplied by a corrector.  (-2)

27 – D, in the course of a transposition, reads οπισθεν instead of οπιθεν (+1)

27 – D, in the course of a transposition, has και before ηψατο (+3).  A corrector has overdotted the word.  

27 – D transposes εν τω οχλω to the end of the verse

28 – D begins the verse with λεγουσα εν εαυτη instead of ελεγεν γὰρ (+14, -9)

28 – D transposes after οτι to καν του ιματίων εαυτου αψωμαι (see next two variants)

28 – D reads του instead of των (+2, -2)

28 – D reads εαυτου instead of αυτου (+1)

28 – D reads ειαται instead of ιαται (+1)

29 – D reads ευθέως instead of ευθυς (+2, -1)

30 – D transposes and adds και between επιγνους and ὁ Ιης (+3)

30 – D does not have εν εαυτω (-7)

30 – D does not have εξ αυτου (-7)

30 – D reads απ αυτου και before επιστραφεὶς (+10) 

30 – D reads ειπεν instead of ελεγεν (+4, -5)

30 – D transposes at the end of the verse to ηψατο των ιματίων μου

31 – D, in the course of a transposition, reads δε instead of και (+2, -3)

31 – D, in the course of a transposition, reads λεγουσιν instead of ελεγον (+8, -6)

31 – D reads συνθλειβοντά instead of συνθλιβοντά (+1)

32 – D reads ειδειν instead of ιδειν (+1)

33 – D reads φοβηθισα instead of φοβηθεισα (-1)

33 – D reads διο πεποιήκει λάθρα after τρέμουσα (+17)

34 – D reads Ιης after ὁ δε (+3) 

34 – D reads σθι instead of ισθι (or κα instead of και) (-1)

TOTAL:  In Codex Bezae’s text of Mark 5:25-34, there are 80 non-original letters present, and 60 original letters are missing, for a total of 140 letters’ worth of corruption.

Now let’s look at GA 505.

Mark 5:25-34 in GA 505

25 – 505 has τις after γυνη (+3)

25 – 505 transposes to ετη δώδεκα

26 – no variations

27 – no variations

28 – 505 has ελεγε instead of ελεγεν (-1)

28 – 505 does not include εαν after οτι (-3)

28 – 505 transposes after οτι to καν των ιματίων αυτου αψωμαι  

29 – 505 has ευθέως instead of ευθυς (+2, -1)

30 – 505 has ευθέως instead of ευθυς (+2, -1)

[30 – part of the page is obscured, but 505 probably does not have ὁ before Ις] (-1)

30 – 505 has ελεγε instead of ελεγεν (-1)

31 – no variations

32 – no variations

33 – 505 has επ before αυτη (+2)

34 – 505 has θύγατερ instead of θύγατηρ (+1, -1)

34 – 505 has σέσωκ- but the ending seems abnormally contracted.  I’m going to treat this as a fluke reading.  (-2)

TOTAL:  In Mark 5:25-34, GA 505 has 9 non-original letters, and is missing 11 original letters, for a total of 20 letters’ worth of corruption.

Using this passage as a sample of the accuracy of the Greek text in D, and the accuracy of the text in 505, there are 140 letters’ worth of corruption in D for every 20 letters’ worth of corruption in 505.  To put it another way:  using the Nestle-Aland compilation as our basis of comparison, Codex D’s text of Mark 5:25-34 contains seven times as much corruption as the text in GA 505.  If the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform were used as our basis of comparison, 505’s text would be essential congruent to it:  the only differences between the two texts in this passage involve movable ν, the obscured portion of the page in verse 30, and that word-ending in v. 34. 

Now let’s consider how the word “daughter” should be spelled in verse 34.  Codex D and Codex W agree with Codex B, reading θύγατηρ.  So does GA 474 (Scrivener’s “e,” Lambeth MS 1179).  However, most other manuscripts read θύγατερ, including ℵ A K L N Θ Π Δ 33 700 1424 1582.  This was the reading adopted in the past by Bengel, by Griesbach, by Scholz, and by Tischendorf (in 1872), and even after θύγατηρ was adopted in the Westcott-Hort 1881 compilation, θύγατερ was preferred by Baljon and Souter. 

            One might try to defend the reading θύγατηρ by proposing that a change to θύγατερ was introduced to bring Mark 5:34 into closer harmony with the parallel-account in Matthew 9:22.  However, when we look at Matthew 9:22, we see that two of the three uncial witnesses for θύγατηρ in Mark 5:34 (D and W) also have θύγατηρ in Matthew 9:22.  Furthermore, L N and Θ read θύγατερ in Mark 5:34 and read θύγατηρ in Matthew 9:22.  Another consideration is that it seems unlikely that a harmonizer would fine-tune spelling but not add Θάρσει from the Matthean parallel.  The lonely testimony of B for θύγατερ in Matthew and θύγατηρ in Mark, where θύγατηρ appears in the following verse, is not as strong, on a point of orthography, as the extremely broad support that θύγατερ enjoys in both passages.  The reading θύγατερ should be adopted in Mark 5:34 – as it already has been in the Tyndale House Greek New Testament.

            With this adjustment in the picture, the accuracy of the text of Mark 5:35-34 in 505 (assigned to the 1100s) is more than seven times better than the text in Codex Bezae (assigned to the 400s).

 

The Healing of Saint Veronica -
from an ancient Roman catacomb

 

            Before we leave Mark’s account of the healing of Saint Veronica, there is a variant in Mark 5:27 worth examining.  In the Byzantine Text and in the Nestle-Aland compilation this verse is exactly the same, but after the word ηψατο, in a smattering of witnesses – M f¹ 33 579 1071 and the Ethiopic version – the words του κρασπέδου (the hem of) are included here.  In Matthew 9:20, after ηψατο, we encounter this full phrase, του κρασπέδου του ἱματίου αυτου (“the hem of His garment”).  In the next verse in f¹³, κρασπέδου has usurped ἱματίου.  Turning to the parallel-passage in Luke 8:44, we find the same phrase after ηψατο:  του κρασπέδου του ἱματίου αυτου. 

            The puzzle that this data presents is this:  if Matthew and Luke both depended on Mark, how is it that they both have του κρασπέδου and Mark does not?  If we reject the reading of f¹ and its allies in Mark 5:27, then we have here a “Minor Agreement” – a passage where Matthew and Luke share a reading with each other but not with Mark. 

            Making things a bit more interesting, Codex D has του κρασπέδου in Matthew 9:20 but not in Luke 8:44 (in which case, the Minor Agreement goes poof in the Western Text.)  Furthermore, Codex D is allied in this respect with a few Old Latin copies:  Old Latin codices a (Codex Vercellensis, probably from the 370s, a.k.a. VL 3), ff² (Codex Corbeiensis secundus, a.k.a. VL 8) and r¹ (Codex  Usserianus primus, a.k.a. VL 14) also do not have these words in Luke 8:44.      

            Without exploring this puzzle further today, I note that this particular array of readings may pose some problems for researchers who want to preserve the Two-Source Hypothesis as a solution to the Synoptic Problem while maintaining the Alexandrian readings in all three Synoptic Gospels.



Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.

Bill Mounce versus Reality

 

Dr. Bill Mounce

           In the course of a recent review of the Tyndale House Greek New Testament, Dr. Bill Mounce stated the following:

            “The number one thing that they’re doing that I really like is that they’re giving primary weight to the ancient, the oldest manuscripts – Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus, and some of those older manuscripts.  We all know, in text-critical circles, that those manuscripts are by default more accurate.  They’re closer to the event; there’s been less time for them to be changed; the editors showed less of a propensity to change.  And when I’m reading this, I feel like I’m one step closer to those oldest and most reliable manuscripts.”

            A clearer expression of the axiom, “Older is better” could scarcely be found.

            But is that true?  Today, let’s take a passage from the Gospels – John 2:1-11, which records Jesus’ miracle of water to wine at the wedding-feast in Cana of Galilee – and see whether or not an ancient manuscript is more accurate than a younger manuscript.  Since the Tyndale House GNT happens to be in view, I shall use its text as the basis of comparison.  We let’s compare this passage as it is reconstructed in the Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament, and Codex Sinaiticus, and a medieval lectionary – specifically, Lectionary 1963 (the Symeon Stylites Lectionary), which is about 1000 years old.

            As we look at John 2:1-11, keep in mind the difference in the ages of these two manuscripts:  reckoning that the Gospel of John was written around A.D. 90, the copyists in the transmission-line of Codex Sinaiticus had only about 260 years in which mistakes could be made, accretions could be added, lines or phrases could be carelessly dropped, and so forth.  Whereas if Lectionary 1963 was produced around 1100, the copyists in its transmission-stream had about 1000 years in which the same sort of thing could occur.

            By Mounce’s logic, we should expect Codex Sinaiticus to have a far superior form of the text.  We all know this . . . right?  The copyists of Sinaiticus had “less of a propensity to change” – right?  And compared to Lectionary 1963, the copyists in the transmission-stream of Codex Sinaiticus only had a third as much time for changes to occur.  Plus, the copyists of Lectionary 1963 were producing a form of the text deliberately altered and adjusted for medieval church-services.  Surely there is no need to wonder which one contains the more accurate text . . . right?

            Nevertheless let us proceed with the comparison.  The usual ground rules for “Hand to Hand Combat” (used in some earlier posts) will be in play here:  all textual differences will be initially noted.  First-hand readings in the text are the focus.  Variants are “scored” in simple mathematical terms:  one point (+) shall be given for each non-original letter, and one point (-) shall be given for the absence of each original letter.  Movable-nu variants are noted.  Contractions of sacred names, and similar abbreviations, will not be counted as variants.  Transpositions will be mentioned but not counted as variants if there is no other difference.  Also, because one of the witnesses being compared is a lectionary, we shall only begin the comparison after the introductory phrase in verse 1.  After an initial score is tallied, each text will be rescored with itacisms and movable-nu readings removed from consideration. 

Now let’s consider Lectionary 1963’s text of John 2:1-11: 

2:1 – no variations

2:2 – no variations

2:3 – no variations

2:4 – no variations

2:5 – Lect 1963 has legei instead of legh (+2, -1)

2:6 – Lect 1963 transposes to udriai liqinai

2:6 – Lect 1963 transposes (after ex) to keimenai kata ton kaqarismon twn Ioudaiwn

2:6 – Lect 1963 has metritas instead of metrhtas (+1, -1)

2:7 – Lect 1963 has gemhsate instead of gemisate (+1, -1)

2:7 – Lect 1963 has egemhsan instead of egemisan (+1, -1)

2:8 – Lect 1963 has arcitriklinw instead of arcitrikleinw (-1)

2:8 – Lect 1963 has kai instead of oi de (+3, -4)

2:9 – Lect 1963 has arcitriklinos instead of arcitrikleinos (+1, -1)

2:9 – Lect 1963 has eidh instead of hdei (+3, -3)

2:9 – Lect 1963 has fwnh instead of fwnei (+1, -2)

2:9 – Lect 1963 has arcitriklinos instead of arcitrikleinos (+1, -1)

2:10 – Lect 1963 has tote after mequsqwsin (+4)

2:11 – Lect 1963 has epoihse instead of epoihsen (-1)

2:11 – Lect 1963 has thn before archn (+3)

2:11 – Lect 1963 has efanerwse instead of efanerwsen (-1)

            Thus in John 2:1-12, Lect 1963 has a rough score of +21 and -18, yielding a total of 39 letters’ worth of deviation from the original text as represented in the THEGNT.  Most of these differences are trivial.  When itacisms and movable-nu variants are removed from the equation, three deviations remain:

2:8 – Lect 1963 has kai instead of oi de (+3, -4)

2:10 – Lect 1963 has tote after mequsqwsin (+4)

2:11 – Lect 1963 has thn before archn (+3)

            The amount of non-trivial variation in John 2:1-11 in Lectionary 1963 consists of a total of 14 letters’ worth of deviation (i.e., 10 non-original letters are present, and four original letters are absent) compared to THEGNT.  Not one of these readings is a medieval novelty.  Codex A (from the 400s) also has kai instead of oi de in 2:8, and Codex A also has tote in 2:10. (Both of those readings are found in the majority of Greek manuscripts.)  Meanwhile Codex Sinaiticus (À) shares thn before archn in 2:11.  (This, too, is the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts.)   

            Now let’s look at John 2:1-11 in Codex Sinaiticus.  This famous manuscript is one which Dr. Mounce described as “by default more accurate” and as one of the “oldest and most reliable manuscripts.”   In his view, Codex Sinaiticus is a “wonderful, wonderful manuscript – the most important copy of the Bible that we have.”

2:1 – no variations

2:2 – no variations

2:2 – À has oinon ouk eicon, oti cunetelesqh o oinos tou gamou eita instead of usterhsantos oinou (+41, -13)

2:3 – À has oinos instead of oinon (+1, -1)

2:3 – À has estin instead of exousin (+2, -4)

2:4 – no variations

2:5 – no variations

2:6 – À does not have keimenai (-8) (The word is added above the line)

2:7 – À has kai at the beginning of the verse (+3)

2:8 – À has arcitriklinw instead of arcitrikleinw (-1)

2:9 – À has arcitliklinos instead of arcitrikleinos (+2, -2)

2:9 – À has arcitriklinos instead of arcitrikleinos (+1, -1)

2:10 – À does not have autw (-4)

2:10 – À has de after su (+2)

2:10 – À has thn before archn (+3)

2:11 – À has prwthn after Galilaias (+6)

2:11 – À does not have autou after docan (-5)

2:11 – À transposes to oi maqhtai autou eis auton

            Thus in John 2:1-11, Codex Sinaiticus has a rough score of +61 (i.e., 60 non-original letters are in the text) and -39 (i.e., 39 original letters are not in the text), for a total of 100 letters’ worth of deviation compared to the THEGNT.  When itacisms and transpositions are removed from the equation, ten variants remain:

2:2 – Sinaiticus has oinon ouk eicon, oti cunetelesqh o oinos tou gamou eita instead of usterhsantos oinou (+41, -13)

2:3 – Sinaiticus has oinos instead of oinon (+1, -1)

2:3 – Sinaiticus has estin instead of exousin (+2, -4)

2:6 – Sinaiticus does not have keimenai (-8) (The word is added above the line)

2:7 – Sinaiticus has kai at the beginning of the verse (+3)

2:10 – Sinaiticus does not have autw (-4)

2:10 – Sinaiticus has de after su (+2)

2:10 – Sinaiticus has thn before archn (+3)

2:11 – Sinaiticus has prwthn after Galilaias (+6)

2:11 – Sinaiticus does not have autou after docan (-5)

            Thus the amount of non-trivial variation in John 2:1-11 in À consists of a total of 93 letters’ worth of deviation (i.e., 58 non-original letters are present, and 35 original letters are absent) compared to the THEGNT. 

            To restate:  when we consider all variants, even trivial ones, Lectionary 1963 has 39 letters’ worth of deviation from the THEGNT.  With trivial variants set aside, Lectionary 1963 has 14 letters’ worth of deviation compared to the THEGNT.  Meanwhile, the text from the copyist of Codex Sinaiticus has 100 letters’ worth of deviation compared to the THEGNT if trivial variants are considered, and if trivial variants are set aside, Codex Sinaiticus has 93 letters’ worth of deviation from the THEGNT. 

            An additional consideration:  tote in verse 10 is widely attested, and could easily be skipped by accident if a copyist’s line of sight shifted to the following to- in the next word, ton.  If tote is regarded as original, then the amount of non-trivial deviation in Lectionary 1963 drops to 10 letters, and the amount of non-trivial deviation in Sinaiticus rises to 97 letters.  No matter how you slice it, John 2:1-11 in Codex Sinaiticus has more than five times as much corruption than Lectionary 1963.

            Dr. Mounce’s notion that the age of a manuscript is a sure measure of the accuracy of its text, however reasonable it sounds, is manifestly untrue. 

            Readers who rely on the Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament for their knowledge of textual variants, however, will be blissfully unaware of the embarrassing plethora of scribal corruptions in the “earliest and most reliable” manuscripts.  In John 2:1-11, the textual apparatus of the THEGNT has exactly zero variant-units.  The apparatus of the THEGNT quotes no patristic writings, no ancient versions, and no lectionaries.  (Based on the list of witnesses in the introduction to the THEGNT, it appears that lectionaries were not even consulted during its compilation.)

            A more detailed apparatus could make difficult for Dr. Mounce to maintain his claim.  Specifically, a more detailed apparatus could include enough information to challenge the claim that the text of John 2:1-11 in Sinaiticus is “most reliable,” and “wonderful,” and accurate by default, and demonstrate instead that in John 2:1-11, the copyists in its transmission-stream had introduced five times the amount of corruptions, in a third of the time, compared to the text in an ordinary medieval lectionary. 

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.

Comparing Sinaiticus to the Byzantine Text in Luke

            Continuing the examination of deviations between the text of Codex Sinaiticus and the Byzantine Text in the Gospels, let’s look today at some meaningful differences the two in the Gospel of Luke.  In Luke, Sinaiticus’ text differs from not only the Byzantine Text, but from virtually all other manuscripts, with great frequency – but usually the differences do not drastically affect the meaning of the sentences in which they occur.  The list of translatable differences between the text of Codex Sinaiticus (À) and the Byzantine Text exceeds 100, but I chose the following 60, not just in the interest of brevity, but also because they make it especially obvious that the text of Codex Sinaiticus is different not only in its wording, but in its meaning. 

            Consider these differences between what Sinaiticus says, and what the Byzantine Text says:

● 1.  In Luke 1:26, is Nazareth located in Judea, or in Galilee?

            À:  Judea

            Byz:  Galilee

● 2.  In Luke 1:28, does the angel tell Mary, “Blessed are you among women?”

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 3.  Does Luke 1:65 say that people spoke of all these things in the hill-country of Judea?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 4.  At the end of Luke 2:14, does the angel say, “Peace on earth; goodwill to men,” or “Peace on earth to men with whom God is pleased”?

            Byz:   Peace on earth; goodwill to men

            À:  Peace on earth to men with whom God is pleased

● 5.  According to Luke 2:37, how many years had Anna been a widow?

            À:  about 74 years

            Byz:  about 84 years   

● 6.  Does Luke 2:43 refer to Joseph and Mary as His “parents,” or as “Joseph and His mother”?

            À:  parents

            Byz:  Joseph and His mother

● 7.  In Luke 2:44, did they look for Jesus among His kinsfolk and acquaintances, or are only his kinsfolk mentioned?

            À:  kinsfolk

            Byz:  kinsfolk and acquaintances

● 8.  In Luke 3:1, in what territory did Pontius Pilate serve as governor?

            À:  the text does not say

            Byz:  Judea

● 9.  Does Jesus’ genealogy in Luke 3:32 mention Boaz and Salmon, or Balls and Sala?

            À:  Balls and Sala

            Byz:  Boaz and Salmon

● 10.  In Luke 3:33, was Adam the father of Admin?

            À:  yes

            Byz:  no

● 11.  Does Luke 4:4 include the phrase “but by every word of God”?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 12.  Does Luke 4:5 say that the devil took Jesus up on a high mountain?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 13.  In Luke 4:8, does Jesus say “You get behind me, Satan”?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 14.  Does Luke 4:18 include the phrase “to heal the broken-hearted”?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 15.  In Luke 5:14, did Jesus tell the healed leper to show himself to the priest?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 16.  Besides tax collectors, did others sit down in Luke 5:29?

            À:  others are not mentioned

            Byz:  yes

● 17.  Does Luke 5:38 include the phrase, “and both are preserved together”?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 18.  Does Luke 6:17 mention people from Perea?

            À:  yes

            Byz:  no

● 19.  Does Jesus say in Luke 6:44 that people do not gather grapes from a bramble-bush, or that people do not gather grapes from a sprout?

            À:  from a sprout

            Byz:  from a bramble-bush

● 20.  In Luke 6:48, did Jesus say that the house “was well-built,” or that it was “built upon the rock”? 

            À:  it was well-built

            Byz:  it was built upon the rock

● 21.  In Luke 8:37, where was the multitude from?

            À:  around the country of the Gergesenes

            Byz:  around the country of the Gadarenes

● 22.  Does Luke 8:40 say that the people in the crowd were all looking for Jesus, or that they were all looking for God?

            À:  for God (τον Θν)

            Byz:  for Jesus (αυτον, Him)

● 23.  Does Luke 8:47 include the statement that the women saw that she was not hid?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 24.  Does Luke 8:47 say that the woman told the crowd why she had touched Jesus?

            À: no

            Byz:  yes

● 25.  Does Luke 8:54, referring to those who mocked, mention that Jesus put them all out?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 26.  Does Luke 8:55 say that the girl who had been dead arose immediately?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 27.  Does Luke 9:7 describe Herod as a tetrarch?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 28.  Does Luke 9:10 mention Bethsaida by name?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 29.  In Luke 10:32, does the Parable of the Good Samaritan include a Levite?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 30.  At the end of Luke 12:37, did Jesus say that the master, when he comes, will serve his faithful servants?

            À:  no 

            Byz:  yes

● 31.  Does Jesus say in Luke 12:39 that the master of the house would have watched if he had known when the thief was coming?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 32.  In Luke 12:52, did Jesus say that there shall be five in one house divided?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 33.  Does the ruler of the synagogue say in Luke 13:14 that it is fitting for man to work six days a week?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 34.  Does Jesus say in Luke 13:25 that some people shall stand outside when they ask for the door to be opened?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes  

● 35.  In Luke 14:15-16, does someone say, “Blessed are those who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God”?  

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 36.  In Luke 15:13, does Jesus mention that the prodigal son wasted his wealth on riotous living?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 37.  Does Luke 16:16 say that everyone is pressing into the kingdom of God?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 38.  Does Jesus conclude Luke 17:9 with the comment, “I know not”?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 39.  In Luke 17:10, does Jesus make a statement about what should be done when everything that was commanded has been done?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 40.  In Luke 17:12, does Luke mention that the ten lepers stood afar off?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 41.  In Luke 17:35, does Jesus say that two shall be grinding; one shall be taken and the other shall be left?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 42.  In the parable in Luke 18:11, does the Pharisee in the temple pray “with himself”?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 43.  Does Luke 18:24 report that Jesus became very sorrowful?   

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 44.  In Luke 20:23, does Jesus ask a question?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 45.  In Luke 20:28, did the Sadducees mention the qualification about a man dying childless? 

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 46.  In Luke 20:30, did the Sadducees specifically say that the second brother took the woman as his wife, and died childless?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 47.  In Luke 21:8, does Jesus predict that many will come and say, “The time is near”?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 48.  Does Luke 22:6 mention that Judas made a promise?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 49.  In Luke 22:53, did Jesus tell those arresting Him, “This is your hour”?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 50.  Does Luke 22:64 mention that Jesus was being struck on the face?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 51.  In Luke 23:5, did the people say that Jesus had been teaching throughout all of Judea?

            À: no

            Byz:  yes

● 52.  In Luke 23:42, did the repentant thief address Jesus as “Lord”?

            À:  no
            Byz:  yes

● 53.  Does Luke 24:1 report that the women at the tomb had some others with them?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 54.  In Luke 24:12, did Peter see the linen clothes lying by themselves?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 55.  According to Luke 24:13, how far was Emmaus from Jerusalem?

            À:  one hundred and sixty stadia

            Byz:  sixty stadia 

● 56.  Does Luke 24:27 say that Jesus explained all of the Scriptures about Him?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 57.  In Luke 24:31, does Luke say that when the two travelers’ eyes were opened, they knew Him?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 58.  Does Luke 24:42 say that Jesus ate a piece of honeycomb?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 59.  In Luke 24:46, does Jesus say that it was fitting for the Messiah to suffer?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 60.  Does Luke 24:51 say that Jesus was carried up into heaven?

            À:  no

            Byz:  yes

            As was the case with the comparisons between the Byzantine Text and the text written by the copyist of Sinaiticus in Matthew and Mark, my purpose is not to show which text is better; it is to show that they are different.  The doctrine of inerrancy is difficult to maintain when one’s text says that Nazareth is in Judea.  And if one uses a text that does not contain Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:51b, one must concede that Jesus’ bodily ascension is not reported anywhere in the Gospels.  In addition, many things are said in the Byzantine Text that the text written by the copyist of Codex Sinaiticus does not say – it is not a matter of conveying the same thing in different words; it is a matter of losing data. 

            At some point, readers should be asking, “How reliable is the text of Codex Sinaiticus?”  A longer list of its unusual readings would demonstrate that it is more unreliable than the average medieval Byzantine manuscript – but to just give some idea of its unreliability:  red dots that accompany a listing indicate that À disagrees not only with the Byzantine Text, but also with the Nestle-Aland compilation (41 out of these 60 entries).