Islam critiqued should've kept it burried; the damning Codex sinaiticus?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

The Codex Sinaiticus, besides exposing the fact that the resurrection was an unknown story in the earliest Gospel, also contains two New Testament books that arent part of the current canon: the Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century and the Epistle of Barnabas, which is more blatant than the current Gospels on explicitly blaming Jesus' alleged murder on the Jews. As to the Old testament part of the Codex, it contains Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus b. Sirach, I Maccabees and IV Maccabees that are all absent from Protestant Bibles.

The Didache, composed anywhere between the mid 1st century and the 3rd century, by an early Christian sect which focused on Torah observance while leaving the door open to gentile converts, makes no mention of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and its Eucharist celebration makes no connection of the meal with the body and blood of Christ, nor does it speak of some of the most basic tenets of Pauline thought such as original sin or faith without works

"Since the writings which now constitute the New Testament were for long not agreed to be sacred, they were repeatedly edited revised and elaborated. The story of Jesus and his sayings was changed according to the context and interests of successive believers. So different sets of believers read and transmitted variant texts… Some additions, revisions and deletions to early Christian writings were on a much grander scale. The intrusion of seven spurious letters into the Pauline corpus, the helpfully compression of two of Paul’s letters to make 2 Corinthians, and the clumsy addition of revised endings to the gospels of Mark (16:9-20) and John (21) – both destined to include extra post-resurrectional appearances of Jesus to the disciples – all illustrate the fluidity and porosity of these texts before they became canonical… The easy alterability of the earliest writings about Jesus, by addition, omission or redaction, indicate that for all the sacredness of their subject, the gospels themselves were not regarded as sacrosanct. Or put another way, for a century or more after Jesus’ death, Christian groups existed, and flourished, without the New Testament. The existence of the gospel of Mark, probably the earliest of the canonical gospels, did not present Matthew and Luke from changing what Mark had written , or from writing their own gospels…"(Keith Hopkins – Professor Cambridge).

Similarly, the Q Gospel, believed to be the source out of which the 4 canonic Gospels expand upon, knows nothing of Jesus’ death and his resurrection. It is inconceivable that its compilers knew of such things, particularly the resurrection, and neglected or chose not to mention them.