Acts marginalia - is Sinaiticus later scribe?

Steven Avery



Milne and Skeat

Jongkind - Scribal Habits p. 126
added by a later hand to Vaticanus. It seems that in Sinaiticus we have only fragments of a system which actually covers large parts of the ...


New Testament Textual Criticism:The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles: Essays on Manuscripts and Textual Variation (2010)
James Keith Elliott and Simonides

Not in 1982 book.


2. Codex Sinaiticus has links with the sixth century manuscript 015 (HPaul). 015 at the end of Paul notes that this manuscript too was corrected against the copy (in Caesarea) of the manuscript used by Pamphilius.

3. Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus share a distinctive chapter division in Acts related to the so-called Euthalian material, found in certain other codices. Euthalian material was associated with Caesarea, and this implies that our two codices spent some time there.20 The Armenian tradition contains Euthaliana and that version also has strong links with Caesarea.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Jongkind p. 121
Not all the numbers are present in Sinaiticus; missing are X, T-Z, and all
numbers after MB. The sections in Sinaiticus are exactly paralleled by
Vaticanus in 31 out of 36 places. Vaticanus skips Sinaiticus's section M (40)
and therefore has a secdon number that is one count lower for the sections
MX and MB, for which places there is agreement in position but not in
Wordsworth and Whiite give in their edition of the Latin Bible the
capitula for several of the important Latin manuscripts, but they do not
indicate from where to where a particular section runs.114 The total number
of section headings of Codex Amiatinus is 70, which is very close to the

number of 69 found in Vaticanus, especially bearing in mind that Vaticanus
has possibly skipped section 40. Another group of Vulgate manuscripts has
a section division that runs up to 74, of which the first 41 sections are
exactly the same as in Amiatinus. On the basis of the wording of the capitula,
which often contain the first words of a section, it is possible to check
whether the Latin and Greek sections coincide. Out of the 36 sections in
Sinaiticus, 28 times agreement in number and position exists, the eight
discrepancies ranging from a difference of half a verse to a couple of verses.
The agreement in numbering is not distorted. It is justified, therefore, to
conclude that basically the Greek system found in Sinaiticus and the younger
hand of Vaticanus is similar to the Latin system.135







Concluding observations on the numbering systems and kephalia
Sinaiticus has. in three different books, the section numbering which was
added by a later hand to I 'aticanus. It seems thjit in Sinaiticus we have only
fragments of a system which actually covers large parts of the whole Greek
Bible.1'8 The origin of this system must go back well into the fourth century
or earlier. As the system also appears in Vulgate manuscripts of Acts, the
question of the origin becomes even more complicated. Why is it only in
Acts that the systems coincide? Unless new evidence is brought forward, it
is impossible to tell whether the Latin system derives from the Greek or
vice versa. The only certain thing is that the two traditions must have been
in contact with one another. The two types of the Latin system are evidence
of internal development within its transmission, for which a certain amount
of time is needed.139 A possible point of contact could be, of course,
Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate in the late fourth century. However,
Jerome is silent on this issue, while he is, in contrast, clear on his borrowing
of the Eusebian apparatus.140
Last edited: