1 Chapter enumerations in the Pauline Epistles of Vaticanus indicate that it incorporated the divisions of an earlier exemplar that placed Hebrews between Galatians and Ephesians. Vaticanus enumerates Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians consecutively as chapters 1–58; Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1–2 Thessalonians as chapters 70–93; and Hebrews (until 9.11 at which point it breaks off) as chapters 59–64 (I owe this observation to the anonymous reviewer of this article). The divisions in Vaticanus are not reproduced in codex Sinaiticus, whose text-type and hand are similar to those of Vaticanus. See Bentley, James, Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of the World's Oldest Bible—Codex Sinaiticus (Garden City: Doubleday, 1986) 99Google Scholar. A later editor of Sinaiticus began a system of chapters in Acts 1–15 that was not continued (Metzger, Bruce M., The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York/London: Oxford University, 1964Google Scholar) 22. On the order of the books of the Old Testament in Vaticanus compared with their respective orders in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, see Coswell, Greg, ‘The Order of the Books in the Greek Old Testament’, JETS 52 (2009) 449–66Google Scholar.

2 For a table of contents of codex Alexandrinus, see Zahn, Theodor, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Erlangen und Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1890) 2/1, 288–9Google Scholar.

3 These five systems have been synthesized from Metzger, Bruce M., Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography (New York/Oxford: Oxford University, 1981) 40–2Google Scholar; Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 22–5; McArthur, H. K., ‘The Earliest Divisions of the Gospels’, Studia Evangelica, iii, Part 2 (ed. Cross, F. L.; Texte und Untersuchungen 88; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964) 266–72Google Scholar; and Greenlee, J. Harold, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Peabody: Hendrickson, rev. ed. 1995) 63–4Google Scholar.

4 The following monographs omit reference to chapter divisions. Kenyon, Frederic G., The Text of the Greek Bible: A Student's Handbook (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1953)Google Scholar; Greenlee, J. Harold, Scribes, Scrolls, and Scripture: A Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985)Google Scholar; Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism; Comfort, Philip, Encountering the Manuscripts (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005)Google Scholar. Parker, David C., An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2008) 316CrossRefGoogle Scholar, contains a brief paragraph on Old Greek Divisions; and Kurt and Aland, Barbara, The Text of the New Testament. An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism ² (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 252Google Scholar, do not expand beyond what is offered in the introduction of Nestle-Aland²⁷ (78–9).

5 Eusebius's explanatory letter to Carpianus and the 10 canonical tables are set forth in Nestle-Aland²⁷, 82–9 (an English translation of the letter can be found in Oliver, H. H., NovT 3 [1959] 138–45Google Scholar). Further description and discussion of the Eusebian Canons can be found in Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 24–5; Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, 42; and especially von Soden, Hermann Freiherr, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt, Band I (Berlin: Alexander Duncker, 1902) 388–402Google Scholar.

6 The chapter divisions of Vaticanus are equally obscure, of course, but their obscurity is of less consequence for scholarly investigation since the Vaticanus divisions were rarely reproduced in the subsequent manuscript tradition.

7 It is virtually certain that the Old Greek Divisions did not originate with the evangelists. Among the numerous papyrus fragments, no extant gospel text contains numbered divisions before the fourth century. Legal documents in the Hellenistic world were often divided into chapter units, but there is no evidence that such divisions were applied to Christian literature before the fourth century. Like early Christian documents in general, the autographs and earliest copies of the gospels would have been composed as single blocks of continuous text. The differences between the division of the gospels in Vaticanus and Alexandrinus are difficult, if not impossible, to explain if both codices were copied from prototypes that contained chapter divisions. The editorial differences between the two manuscripts are readily explainable, however, if they derived from subsequent textual editions (on the foregoing, see McArthur, ‘Earliest Divisions of the Gospels’, 266–8). The Old Greek Divisions must have derived from a respected source, authority, or locale, however, for they are a standard feature, with little or no variation, in manuscripts of the gospels from the fifth century onwards (see von Soden, Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 402–3).

8 See Graves, Michael, ‘The Public Reading of Scripture in Early Judaism’, JETS 50 (2007) 467–87Google Scholar.

9 1 Apol. 67.

10 Apos. Trad. 11, 17.

11 Apos. Const. 8.5.11.

12 Old, Hughes Oliphant, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, vol. 1. The Biblical Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 344–5Google Scholar.

13 Yarnold, E., ‘Liturgy and Bible’, Encyclopedia of the Early Church (ed. Di Bernardino, Angelo; 2 vols., New York: Oxford University, 1992)Google Scholar 1.504.

14 See McArthur's discussion of this point in ‘Earliest Divisions of the Gospels’, 268–70.

15 Mark #34 = 11.25; Luke #66 = 19.12; John #12 = 12.3.

16 Matt #8 = 8.14–15.

17 John #9 = 6.16–8.59.

18 The introductions of the four gospels in the Old Greek Divisions remain a conundrum. The observation of McArthur, ‘Earliest Divisions of the Gospels’, 271, that ‘the custom of dividing materials into numbered sections (κϵϕάλαια) began in pre-Christian legal documents’ and that ‘[a]s this mode of division acquired popularity in the second and third centuries it was transferred to other forms of literature including the Gospels’ speaks to the issue, though (as McArthur admits) it does not resolve it. With regard to the NT as a whole, the Old Greek Divisions introduce books in three different ways: (1) with no introductions, (2) with brief introductions, and (3) with extended introductions. With regard to #1, seven books have no introductions. The Acts of the Apostles, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation begin the first chapter of the Old Greek Divisions with the first verse. With regard to #2, the introductory unnumbered sections of the 13 Pauline letters, 2–3 John, and Jude all agree exactly or closely with the introductory salutations of modern editions of the Bible. The only minor exception to this rule is Romans, which stretches the introduction to the first 17 verses. This is longer than the introduction of Romans in modern editions, but it is not implausible. With regard to #3, the Old Greek Divisions endowed all four gospels with extended introductions. The Divisions begin the first chapters of Matthew, Luke, and John with the second chapters in modern editions, and the first chapter of Mark at 1.23. Of the above three conventions, only the second corresponds to modern practice. The first and third conventions continue to baffle modern literary instincts.

19 26 chapters in Matthew begin with a word or deed of Jesus, 35 in Mark, 44 in Luke, and five in John.

20 Many of the miracles are shared in common by two or more evangelists. The miracles are here listed not by their parallels, but by occurrence in each gospel in order to indicate where new chapters commence.

Matthew: cleansing leper, 8.1-4; healing centurion's son, 8.5-13; healing Peter's mother-in-law, 8.14-18; healing demoniac, 8.28–9.1; healing paralytic, 9.2-8; healing Jairus's daughter, 9.18-19; healing hemorrhaging woman, 9.20-26; healing two blind men, 9.27-31; exorcism, 9.32-34; exorcism, 12.22-24; healing man with withered hand, 12.9-14; feeding five thousand, 14.15-21; walking on water and rescuing Peter from drowning, 14.22-33; healing daughter of Syrophoenician woman, 15.22-28; feeding four thousand, 15.32-39; healing epileptic boy, 17.14-20; healing blind man at Jericho, 20.29-34; withering fig tree, 21.18-22; opening of tombs in Jerusalem, 27.52-53.

Mark: exorcism, 1.23-26; healing Peter's mother-in-law, 1.29-34; cleansing leper, 1.40-42; healing paralytic, 2.3-12; healing man with withered hand, 3.1-6; many exorcisms, 3.7-12; healing demoniac, 5.1-21; healing Jairus's daughter, 5.22-24; healing hemorrhaging woman, 5.25-43; feeding five thousand, 6.34-56; walking on water, 6.47-56; healing daughter of Syrophoenician woman, 7.24-30; healing deaf man, 7.31-37; feeding four thousand, 8.1-9; healing blind man, 8.22-26; healing epileptic boy, 9.17-27; healing blind man at Jericho, 10.46-52; withering fig tree, 11.12-26.

Luke: exorcism, 4.33-37; healing Peter's mother-in-law, 4.38-39; miraculous catch of fish, 5.4-11; cleansing leper, 5.12-17; healing paralytic, 5.18-26; healing man with withered hand, 6.6-12; healing centurion's son, 7.1-10; raising boy at Nain from dead, 7.11-17; healing demoniac, 8.27-39; healing Jairus's daughter, 8.40-42; healing hemorrhaging woman, 8.43-56; feeding five thousand, 9.12-17; healing epileptic boy, 9.38-45; exorcism, 11.14; healing woman ill for 18 years, 13.10-17; healing man with dropsy, 14.2-6; healing 10 lepers, 17.11-19; healing blind man at Jericho, 18.35-43; healing severed ear of servant, 22.51.

John: changing water to wine, 2.1-11; healing official's son, 4.46-54; healing paralytic at pool of Bethesda, 5.5-16; feeding five thousand, 6.5-15; walking on water, 6.16-21; healing blind man, 9.1-41; raising Lazarus from dead, 11.1-44.

21 See section 4.3.

22 Some parables are shared in common by two or more evangelists. Parables are here listed not by their parallels, but by occurrence in each gospel in order to indicate where new chapters commence.

Matthew: the Sower, 13.3-9; Lost Sheep, 18.12-14; Unmerciful Servant, 18.23-35; Laborers in the Vineyard, 20.1-16; Two Sons, 21.28-32; Wicked Tenants, 21.33-46; Wedding Banquet, 22.1-14; Thief in the Night, 24.42-44; Wise and Foolish Maidens, 25.1-13; Talents and Pounds, 25.14-30; Sheep and Goats, 25.31-46.

Mark: the Sower, 4.2-9; Wicked Tenants, 12.1-12.

Luke: the Sower, 8.4-8; Good Samaritan, 10.30-37; Rich Fool, 12.16-21; Wedding Banquet, 14.16-24; Tower Builder and Warring King, 14.28-33; Lost Sheep, 15.3-7; Prodigal Son, 15.11-32; Unjust Steward, 16.1-8; Rich Man and Lazarus, 16.19-31; Unjust Judge, 18.1-8; Pharisee and Tax Collector, 18.9-14; Wicked Tenants, 20.9-19; Talents and Pounds, 19.12-27.

23 Whereas a number of shorter sayings are generally regarded as parables (e.g., Seed Growing Secretly, Mark 4.26-29; or Mustard Seed, Mark 4.30-32//Matt 13.31-32//Luke 13.18-19), several others (e.g., Unshrunk Cloth, Mark 2.21; Strong Man, Mark 3.27; Faithful and Unfaithful Steward, Matt 24.45-51//Luke 12.42-46; Humble Servant, Luke 17.7-10) are uncertain.

24 Von Soden, Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 424, rightly notes, ‘Die Hauptsorge des Einteilers ist, dass die Anfänge der parallelen κϵϕ[άλαια] in den verschiedenen Evv sich decken’.

25 Five instances occur in Matthew (8.19; 9.2; 13.3; 19.3; 24.3), 14 in Mark (1.23, 40; 2.3; 4.2; 5.22; 6.7, 34, 47; 8.15; 9.17; 10.2; 13.3; 14.3, 18), eight in Luke (5.4, 18; 6.13; 8.27; 9.38; 11.46; 15.3; 19.29), and four in John (5.5; 6.5; 12.3; 13.3).

26 This corresponds with the hermeneutic that prevailed in patristic exegesis as a whole, which ‘was first and foremost Christological’, so Just, Arthur A. Jr, Luke (ACCS 3; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003)Google Scholar xx. On Christological emphases in the spiritual exegesis of the Fathers, see Wilken, Robert, Remembering the Christian Past (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 107–19Google Scholar.

27 Matthew's six major teaching chapters in the Old Greek Divisions versus Luke's one teaching chapter would seem to argue against an awareness of a common sayings source behind the First and Third Gospels. The two gospels that according to the ‘Q’ hypothesis are the most similar are the two that the Old Greek Divisions capitulate most differently.

28 E.g., Mark #26 (9.17-32) and Luke #31 (9.38-45) are assigned the title πϵρι του σϵληνιαζομϵνου, which can only derive from Matthew #35 (17.14-23).

29 Von Soden, Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 428: ‘In [der Ostergeschichte] werden die den einzelnen Evv eigentümlichen Osterscenen nicht ausgelöst; sie bilden einander ergänzend ein zusammenhängendes Ganzes’.

30 The de-emphasis of the synoptic purposes of the Old Greek Divisions in McArthur, ‘Earliest Divisions of the Gospels’, 270–1, is countered and corrected in von Soden, Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 420–8.

31 In 159 instances Old Greek Divisions commence at the same points as do Eusebian Canons.

32 It is beyond the scope of this study to investigate the possible relationship of the Old Greek Divisions and the Eusebian Canons. For a not implausible argument that the Divisions antedate the Eusebian Canons, see von Soden, Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 430–2.

33 Von Soden, Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 423–4, likewise notes the focus on proper nouns rather than on conceptual ‘Stoff’ in the chapter titles.

34 Von Soden, Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 423, recognizes the insignificance of teaching units in the Old Greek Divisions. ‘Die Redeabschnitte interessieren ihn wenig; bei ihnen müht er sich nicht um eine Einteilung…’

35 δυνατὸς ϵ᾽ν ϵ῎ργῳ καὶ λόγῳ. Similarly, Acts 1.1 speaks of everything Jesus began ποιϵῖν τϵ καὶ διδάσκϵιν. On the role of the works and words of Jesus in the earliest oral traditions of the gospels, particularly as attested by Luke 1.1-4 and Papias (Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.39.4-5), see Bauckham, Richard, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 15–21Google Scholar.