do the Sinaiticus Ammonian sections come from the Alexandrinus printed edition ? - Eusebian canons

Steven Avery

do the Sinaiticus Ammonian sections come from the Alexandrinus printed edition ?

The Alexandrinus edition could be Baber, although of course the pseudo-Alexandrinus of Zosimas should be checked.

Are they first hand (Athos) or perhaps later hand (very possibly Sinai additions.) Remember, Scrivener is only going off the Tischendorf facsimile.

A full collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the received text of the New Testament: to which is prefixed a critical introduction

Nor will the conclusions to which we are thus led on, step by step, be at all weakened by the fact that Cod. Sinaiticus, in this particular disagreeing with Cod. Vaticanus, exhibits the Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons in red ink in the margin (see Facsimile 2, and p. xiv, note 1), of which Cod. Alexandrinus had hitherto supplied the earliest example. These numerals are very possibly by the hand of the original scribe, but must have been added by a contemporary, perhaps by the (Grk) or corrector (see p. xx), since to the eye they look quite as old, and here and there the arrangements of the manuscript in respect to breaks and initial letters (see p. xv) are plainly adapted to them 4. ... (continues) p. xxxvi

the presence, on the other hand, of the Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons in the Gospels and of the Vatican chapters in the Acts :—the unusual order of the books of the N. T., p. lxi

IV. Benedict had before him the Codex Alexandrinus, and right glad we are to be told that so ripe a work of western scholarship has penetrated the recesses of the Greek monasteries. How came he then to adopt the Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons of that manuscript, while he rejected the notation of the larger (Grk) and the titles or headings it also contains; the rather since all known manuscripts except Codd. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Bezae are believed to exhibit them. p. lxix

small refs in p. xi xiv xxix
The presence in the Gospels of the Ammonian Sections, called Ammonian because attributed by Wetstein to Ammonius Saccas,* and of the Eusebian Canons, which are harmonistic tabular arrangements ; these Sections and Canons being marked in red ink in the margin, and the marks evidently contemporary with the original scribe.

The Homilist
Codex Sinaiticus - C. W

However this may be:

Ammonius of Alexander

The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canon Tables
in Matthew there are 355 sections but only 68 kefalaia.


William Andrew Smith discusses some of the quirks of the Ammonian sections in Alexandrinus and has about five references.

A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Hands
"cascading errors"
The Ammonian sections are entirely lacking in Luke 9:1-43,

Do these quirks carry over to the printed editions?

From the Bob Waltz site:

Last edited:

Steven Avery

James Snapp mentions that the Swanson edition has comparative information and has a YouTube
Those interested in more about the Eusebian Canons and "Ammonian" Sections may want to watch my video-lecture on the subject at

Also, if you have Swanson's volumes on the Gospels, note that he includes tables of the main variations of the Canons, as appendices.

Received Text


The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations
Peter M. Head Cambridge University
Last edited: