Robinson in Euthaliana proposes Jerome as author of Acts section headers, which pushes after 4th century

[Steven Avery]

Euthaliana: Studies of Euthalius, Codex H of the Pauline Epistles, and the Armenian Version
Joseph Armitage Robinson
https://books.google.com/books?id=LtRMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA42
https://archive.org/details/textsandstudiesc03robiuoft/page/n299/mode/1up

https://books.google.com/books?id=LtRMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA101
https://archive.org/details/textsandstudiesc03robiuoft/page/n358/mode/1up

Westcott Hort on p. 266
https://books.google.com/books?id=7ZxUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA266
Amiatinus

Cresswell
https://books.google.com/books?id=aHA8CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT24
The existence of Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican’s extensive
library has been known for some time. It was indeed included in the
library’s first catalogue made in 1475. Where it may have originally
come from is unknown; there is the possibility that the Vatican has
had it for many centuries longer. It was for some time regarded as a
Greek manuscript dependent on the Vulgate, rather than vice versa.
But then, as it began to be inspected and analysed, its importance as
a source prior to the Latin Vulgate began to be realised. Some of the
Vulgate bibles do indeed have the same chapter divisions for Acts.
This suggests that Jerome, in preparing his Latin bible, used one or
both of the codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, or a related codex that
now no longer exists.

========================================

Hort placing Vaticanus (and Sinaiticus) as written in Rome - Acts chapter divisions - (kephalaia)
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...in-rome-acts-chapter-divisions-kephalaia.287/
Wikipedia
the chapter division of Acts, similar to that of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, is not found in any other Greek manuscript, but is present in several manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate.[64] Robinson counters the argument by suggesting that this system of chapter divisions was introduced into the Vulgate by Jerome himself, as a result of his studies at Caesarea.[65]
64. Brook F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper & Bros.. 1882; reprint, Peabody. Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988). pp. 264-267.
65. Robinson, Euthaliana, pp. 42, 101.

Vaticanus linguistics, provenance and production - Bill Cooper linguistics note - India ink - Isak and Istrael
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...te-india-ink-isak-and-istrael.273/#post-14892
Cooper
. ... the personal names in the codex are spelt as they appear in the Vulgate, and not as in the Greek mss - e.g. Isak (for Isaac) and Istrael or even Isdrael (for Israel) - and in the Book of Acts especially the chapter divisions are those of the Vulgate, and not of the Greek.10

This PBF
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-headers-which-pushes-after-4th-century.3575/

 

[Steven Avery]

Euthaliana

p. 42

Whether this Euthalian system was invented by Euthalius, or
only adopted by him, may possibly be questioned. But it is quite
clear that his system of chapters and subdivisions could not be
derived from a longer system of chapters only. And now that we
have pushed the date of Euthalius further back, there is no chrono-
logical difficulty in supposing him to have been the inventor of
the system which he employs.

p. 101