Abstract
Can the history of the evolution of text division and the formation of biblical chapters ever be exciting? Those that think not must read Charles Hill’s latest book. In this meticulously researched study Hill tells a fascinating story that will both inform and entertain. Readers will be enriched not just in their knowledge of the mechanics of textual divisions, but more importantly they will gain an appreciation of the motivations behind early ways of dividing the text. Moreover, the discussion illustrates the interplay between textual divisions and scriptural interpretation. This is a book with deep intellectual insights, a wealth of primary textual information, and replete in helpful illustrations. This is a highly significant piece of scholarship for those interested in the transmission of the biblical text, the development of book culture, and the centrality of text in early Christianity.
In his prologue (pp. 1-15), Hill sets out some of the challenges to locating specific scriptural texts in a lengthy piece of writing around the time of the first century. He notes the imprecision in many of the references provided for Jewish scriptural passages cited in the New Testament with vague references such as ‘again Isaiah says’ (Rom 15.12), or with even greater imprecision, ‘it has been testified somewhere’, to introduce material from Ps 8.4-6 employed in Hebrews 2.6. Despite this imprecision, Hill highlights that these loose formulae acknowledged both that the text was drawn from scripture, and that they imposed ‘a claim of the highest authority upon the reader or hearer, while at the same time testing to the limits that reader’s or hearer’s knowledge of the written source cited’ (p. 2). It is against this background of valuing the use of scriptural material in a later work that Hill’s study traces the development of the first attempts to structure lengthy pieces of writing in a user-friendly manner that facilitated cross-referencing.
Hill identifies three primary benefits that arise from imposing a ‘chapter’ structure on a literary work. First, it is noted that ‘one of the main advantages of a standardized set of numerical ciphers is that they help direct ourselves or others to a particular textual site’ (p. 5). This is seen as facilitating both the act of teaching and hence the shared experience of a text. In this way, chapters help unify a community in its textual experience. Second, ‘[c]hapter divisions also guide our reading and assist our recollection’ (p. 5). Hill see this as creating a mental map of a text, as well as orienting readers to appreciate the size, sequence and structure of a literary work. Third, the imposition of chapters, ‘help us make interpretative decisions’ (p. 6). Thus, through separating or dividing material, interpretative contexts are formed, material is accentuated in light of other material, and opening and closing statements are highlighted.
The body of Hill’s volume is organized in three parts, with eight chapters and an epilogue. His own work is of course an example of the very phenomenon he describes. The first part traces the origins and earliest examples of textual divisions up to the fourth century. In chapter one he traces the practices of textual division across Greek, Latin and Jewish scribal traditions. Here some of the more rudimentary examples of textual division are observed. However, it is argued that practices observed in ‘the OT textual tradition should at least inform the study of the NT textual tradition’ (p. 36). In chapter two he discusses the emergence of the technical vocabulary used to describe textual division. This is undertaken in two parts. Initially he examines terms available to New Testament writers and the developments that led to a more complex vocabulary by the beginning of the fourth century. Then, Hill describes the emergence of the first numbered, chapter systems for the bible. This numbering took place primarily in reference to the New Testament. Here Hill notes three types of systems for the Gospels, and two systems for Acts and the Epistles – which were in common with two of the systems found in the gospels. These two common systems ‘will be called “Chapter-Section Type” asnd “Chapter-Title Type”. The third type, known only for the Gospels, one could call a “Parallel Section Type”’ (p. 52). The latter phenomenon of parallel sections is necessitated by the form of material contained in the gospels which contain parallel accounts, especially in the Synoptic Gospels. This resulted in the formation of the so-called Ammonian Sections, which were later developed and refined to form the system of Eusebian Canons.
In the next two parts of the volume the focus falls on Codex Vaticanus. In chapter three (pp. 67-112), Hill introduces the scribal features of this codex noting in particular the practices of ‘supplying the text block from time to time with spaces, ektheses and paragraphoi’ (p. 111). This leads him to the fundamental question that guides the discussion in chapter four, namely who inscribed the numbers in the margins of Vaticanus that function as textual divisions, and when did they do so? Hill’s related answers to those two question are, as he notes, a challenge to a scholarly consensus. He states: At the present time the majority, and perhaps among Anglophone scholars the consensus, opinion appears to be that the Capitulatio Vaticana was no part of the original labours that produced the finished codex, but was added sometime later in the fourth or fifth century. I have come to believe that opinion to be mistaken. In one sense, the question is not crucial to an attempt to discover the backstory of the first numbered, chapter divisions of the Bible. The chapter numbers were placed there, all seem to agree, by someone in the fourth or possibly the fifth century, and the search for any precedents does not depend upon our knowing exactly when they were placed or by whom. (p. 115).
This argument is based on a detailed consideration of handwriting style (palaeography), and analysis concerning ink colouration. Hill notes the presence of two numerators, people responsible for the numbering, N1 and N2. Furthermore, he identifies one of the writers of the manuscript, Scribe B, with N2. Since he also observes that NI and N2 often completed each other’s work and worked in conjunction he comes to the conclusion that, ‘this interaction between the two numerators assures us that both were at work on the original codex’ (p. 150). Moreover, providing corroboration, Hill argues that N1 was one of the correctors of Codex Vaticanus. In the following chapter, Hill explores some of the implications that follow from this finding. In particular, he suggests that the scribes and numerators may have been continuing work found in exemplar texts.
The final part of the book draws on the data in comparanda texts to reveal precedents for the divisions in Codex Vaticanus, and thus to understand more fully the background to numbered, chapter divisions. Initially, chapter six explores precedents in Old Testament manuscripts (pp. 193-312). Then chapter seven conducts a similar exploration in relation to New Testament manuscripts (pp. 313-400). These are two chapters are full, detailed, and rich discussions of a wealth of primary evidence. From this three conclusions emerge: ‘the CapVst chapter number system for the NT books in Codex Vaticanus predates the creation of Vaticanus; the textual articulations it makes are even older; the articulations are primarily based on literary-analytical, rather than on topical consideration’ (p. 400).
In chapter eight, Hill draws together several significant conclusions regarding the provenance of Vaticanus and the impetus behind the work of the numerators of the codex (pp. 401-413). He then explores implication that consideration of practices of textual division might have for dating papyri such as 
4+64/67, 75, 66. In all cases he cautions against attempts to suggest late dates for these manuscripts. These implications will no doubt occasion more discussion and debate.
This book is a treasure-trove of textual information and insights. It provides new perspective on the phenomenon of textual division, and it advances new, and at times challenging ideas. It will certainly occasion further conversation and research. What is certain is that this stunning piece of scholarship will not be ignored.