manuscripts incl. – E 323 453 945 1739 1891 2818 omit – A Majority of manuscripts incl. – C 33 D* 323 453 614 sy sa bo omit – A B E L Ψ 81 Majority of manuscripts omit – A B L P 049 81 1175 1241 p* s vg co incl. – E Ψ 33 323 614 945 1505 1739 2464 gig sy omit – A B E Ψ 048 33 81 1175 1739 2464 s sy co incl. – Majority of manuscripts omit – A B C 81 1739 2464 b co incl. – Majority of manuscripts Alexandrinus is an important witness for the absence of Pericope Adultera (John 7:53–8:11). Gregory asserted in regard to the lost two leaves (John 6:50–8:52), "For by counting the lines we can prove that it was not in the book. There was not room for it". A similar counting involving missing leaves is done with Codex Ephraemi. History Place of origin The codex's original provenance is unknown. Cyril Lucaris was the first to suggest Alexandria as its place of origin, which has been the traditional view and is the most probable hypothesis. This popular view is based on an Arabic note on folio 1 (from the 13th or 14th century), which reads: "Bound to the Patriarchal Cell in the Fortress of Alexandria. Whoever removes it thence shall be excommunicated and cut off. Written by Athanasius the humble." "Athanasius the humble" is identified with Athanasius III, Patriarch of Alexandria from 1276 to 1316. F. C. Burkitt questioned this popular view. According to Burkitt, the note reads: "Bound to the Patriarchal Cell in the Fortress of Alexandria. He that lets it go out shall be cursed and ruined. The humble Athanasius wrote (this)." The codex had been found on Mount Athos, and might have been taken to Egypt by Cyril in 1616, and so all the Arabic writing in the codex could have been inserted between that date and 1621, when Cyril was elected Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. On this supposition "Athanasius the humble" might have been "some person of Cyril's staff who had charge of his library". According to Burkitt's view the codex was found on Athos, but it was written in Constantinople, because it represents a Constantinopolitan text (now known as the Byzantine text). This hypothesis was supported by Kirsopp Lake. Frederic G. Kenyon opposed Burkit's view, and argued Cyril firmly