source Google ScholarSee all References, 10.
In addition, scholars have found no indication that the original manuscript of Luke and Acts was in the New Covenant or that the manuscripts of Acts were in the Greek New Testament.
Although the manuscript of Acts is considered to be the earliest manuscript to have been published, this is disputed by other scholars, including many scholars who have examined and compared the original manuscripts.
This is also one of the only two extant manuscripts that contains all four chapters of Luke, with the others being the Vulgate and the Apocrypha.
The first two manuscripts of Luke were copied in a single copy into the manuscript book of the Syriac text of Luke 2:31, and there is no indication of the original being in either of these copies.
The manuscripts of Mark and Luke were not in the original Greek text of the Greek text but rather, were composed in the second half of the second century.
A third manuscript, also from the second-century Syriac, has been identified as being the first copy of Mark in the third century.
This third manuscript was a fragment of an original manuscript, but its manuscript was not found.
The original manuscript was known as the Syriaca Syriacus.
The fourth manuscript, the Syriacus, is considered the earliest Greek manuscript of the text of Mark, which was known at that time as the Vulgar Latin.
The New Testament manuscripts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are found in the same order in the manuscript library of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
This order of manuscript order was not known to the authors of the four canonical books in the Bible until after the time of the Apostles.
Some scholars have suggested that the order of the canonical books may have evolved from the order in which they were compiled.
This was the order that was used in the Old Testament.
The order of Canonical Books in the Hebrew Bible was not preserved until the third millennium.
Although there is evidence of an oral tradition of the authors or editors of the Canonical books, no evidence of their origin is known.
The existence of this oral tradition and its implications for the order and composition of the texts of the Scriptures cannot be determined with certainty.