Apart from this lone fourth century MS, the rest of the Greek testimony is quite late, coming approximately 500 and 700 years later. Further, the reading in question is a compound nomen sacrum following immediately after another compound nomen sacrum . With all the successive upsilons an accidental deletion is likely. Thus, although we might charge the lineage of which Sinaiticus is a part with mild carelessness here, we would at the same time be affirming its roots very deep into the second century, perhaps even earlier. But the strongest argument that Sinaiticus accidentally omitted these words actually becomes evidence for the great antiquity of its form of text.
More data can only make the case against the omission stronger.
All rights reserved.