The study of scribal marginal notes, known as scholia, glosses, and marginalia, is indispensable for understanding the transmission history of the New Testament text. These annotations—ranging from interpretive comments and variant readings to cross-references and corrections—provide insight into how early Christian scribes interacted with, interpreted, and transmitted the sacred writings. While textual critics primarily focus on reconstructing the original text, marginal notes reveal how that text was read, understood, and sometimes altered by its copyists. This investigation will explore the types of marginal annotations found in Greek New Testament manuscripts, their purpose, their impact on the textual tradition, and how they assist in identifying textual relationships and scribal habits. Through this analysis, it becomes evident that marginal notes, though secondary to the main text, play a vital role in illuminating the fidelity and development of New Testament transmission.

The Nature and Function of Marginal Notes

Marginal notes are written additions placed in the outer, inner, upper, or lower margins of a manuscript. Their content varies considerably—from lexical explanations to textual corrections and liturgical directions. The presence of these notes in both papyrus and parchment manuscripts reflects a consistent pattern of scribal engagement with the biblical text. Far from being mere incidental comments, marginal notes served specific and deliberate functions.

Some marginal notes represent early attempts to preserve variant readings that a scribe deemed important. When a scribe encountered a textual divergence between exemplars, he might choose one reading for the main text and record the alternative in the margin, often introduced by the abbreviation ἄλλος (allos, “another”) or ἄλλως (“otherwise”). This indicates the scribe’s awareness of textual variation and his concern for preserving both readings. In other instances, marginal notes were inserted to harmonize parallel passages, particularly in the Gospels. Such harmonization reflects a natural scribal tendency to reconcile discrepancies, but it also illustrates the growing awareness of textual diversity even in early Christian communities.

Marginalia also frequently include interpretive or explanatory glosses—short definitions or paraphrases inserted to clarify obscure expressions. For example, in several later Byzantine manuscripts, words like πραιτώριον (praitorion, “praetorium”) are explained in the margin as “the governor’s palace.” These glosses were not intended to alter the text but to aid readers unfamiliar with Roman or Jewish terminology. However, in certain cases, glosses inadvertently entered the main text in subsequent copies when later scribes mistook them for corrections or omitted material, thereby creating new textual variants. This process of marginal assimilation underscores the complex interplay between text and commentary in the transmission of the New Testament.

Marginal Corrections and Scribe–Corrector Interaction

A distinction must be made between original scribal notes and later correctors’ marginal annotations. In numerous manuscripts, especially majuscules such as Codex Sinaiticus (א) [330–360 C.E.] and Codex Vaticanus (B) [300–330 C.E.], corrections in the margins reveal multiple stages of textual revision. Codex Sinaiticus, for instance, exhibits at least nine distinct hands of correction spanning several centuries. The earliest corrector, likely contemporary with the original scribe, often introduced small orthographic corrections, while later correctors aligned readings with prevailing textual forms—typically Byzantine. These corrections were recorded either in the margin or interlinearly, indicating a living process of textual transmission in which scribes and later readers sought to refine or conform the text to perceived standards of accuracy.

Codex Vaticanus presents a different picture. Its margins show limited intervention, suggesting a scribe who possessed both a high-quality exemplar and a disciplined approach to transmission. Minimal marginal correction in Vaticanus aligns with the precision of the Alexandrian textual tradition, which prioritized accuracy over interpretive freedom. The limited number of marginal additions in Vaticanus is not evidence of neglect but of an exceptionally careful transmission process in which scribes viewed the text as sacrosanct and avoided unnecessary commentary.

Early Papyri and Marginal Phenomena

The earliest papyri—such as P75 [175–225 C.E.] and P66 [125–150 C.E.]—offer unique insight into how marginal notes functioned in the earliest phases of New Testament copying. P66, which contains the Gospel of John, includes several marginal corrections by the original scribe and a later corrector. These annotations demonstrate an effort to refine the text toward a more accurate exemplar. The corrector’s interventions generally align with the text of Codex Vaticanus, confirming the stability of the Alexandrian tradition by the mid-second century. P75 exhibits similar features, though with fewer marginal notes; its consistency with Vaticanus (approximately 83% agreement) illustrates a careful transmission chain with limited interference from marginal commentary.

P46 [100–150 C.E.], containing portions of Paul’s letters, also features occasional marginal additions. Some of these are simple orthographic corrections, while others indicate alternative readings or expansions. For example, in several places, marginal notes preserve alternative word orders that correspond with later Byzantine readings, showing that textual variation had already begun to circulate among early Pauline communities. These early papyri demonstrate that marginal activity was not a later medieval phenomenon but an integral part of New Testament transmission from its earliest stages.

Glosses and Their Entry into the Text

One of the most significant textual phenomena resulting from marginal notes is the incorporation of glosses into the main text. Glosses often began as explanatory aids but were later misinterpreted as part of the text itself. This is observable in passages such as John 5:4, the well-known verse describing an angel stirring the water at the pool of Bethesda. Early Alexandrian witnesses such as P66, P75, and Codex Vaticanus omit the verse, whereas later Byzantine manuscripts include it. The most plausible explanation is that an explanatory gloss—originally intended to clarify why people gathered at the pool—was copied into the main text by later scribes. This demonstrates how marginal annotations, though secondary, could directly influence the evolving textual tradition.

The earliest and best witnesses (MSS) 𝔓66 𝔓75 א A* B C* L T D Wsupp 33 itd, I, Q copb Vg Syc do not have John 5:3b–4 in their exemplar; Other later witnesses (MSS) A2 C3 L Θ Ψ 078vid Maj itb did have: “waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel of the Lord would come down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred the water. Whoever went in first after the stirring of the water was healed of whatever disease he had.” Later scribes added this interpolation to explain the sick man’s answer in verses 7 where he describes ‘the water being stirred up.’ – UASV footnote.

Another well-documented case involves Luke 22:43–44, the passage describing Jesus’ agony and His sweat becoming like drops of blood. These verses are absent in the earliest and most reliable Alexandrian witnesses, including P69, P75, Codex Sinaiticus (א), Codex Alexandrinus (A), Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex T (029), and Codex W (032), along with the Syriac Sinaitic and Sahidic Coptic versions, as well as citations from Marcion, Clement, and Origen. The evidence overwhelmingly supports their exclusion from the original text of Luke. Although they appear in later witnesses such as Codex Bezae (D), Codex L (019), Codex Θ (038), and the Byzantine tradition—with some manuscripts marking them by asterisks or obeli to signal doubt—the external evidence decisively favors omission. Westcott and Hort regarded Luke 22:43–44 as an early (second-century) interpolation drawn from oral tradition about Jesus’ passion rather than from the autograph itself. Bruce M. Metzger likewise concluded that the passage “is no part of the original text of Luke,” noting that its wide absence across geographically diverse early witnesses, and its later addition into Matthew’s Gospel by family 13, point to a secondary origin. Philip W. Comfort also concurs that the verses are not authentic to Luke, emphasizing that their inclusion in later manuscripts stems from early but non-original tradition. This author would concur with Metzger and Comfort. Therefore, the balance of textual and historical evidence confirms that Luke did not pen these verses; they represent an early pious interpolation that entered the text through secondary transmission, not doctrinal omission.

Liturgical and Lectionary Annotations

By the fourth and fifth centuries, as the New Testament was increasingly used in public worship, marginal notes began to include liturgical and lectionary indicators. These are seen, for example, in Codex Alexandrinus (A) [400–450 C.E.], where marginal symbols mark the beginning and end of lectionary readings. Terms such as ἀρχή (“beginning”) and τέλος (“end”) indicate where a particular reading was to commence or conclude in public recitation. These liturgical notes, though not textual variants, have sometimes been mistaken for part of the biblical text by later scribes, leading to minor interpolations or omissions in subsequent copies.

The presence of such annotations also attests to the ecclesiastical use of these manuscripts and the reverence with which they were treated. The transmission of the New Testament was not confined to private study but was deeply integrated into worship and teaching. Marginal lectionary notes, therefore, provide crucial evidence for the functional context in which the text was copied and read.

Scholastic and Exegetical Marginalia

As Christianity entered the medieval period, marginal notes became more extensive and systematic, reflecting the rise of scholastic commentary traditions. Manuscripts from this period often contain not only textual notes but also theological reflections or interpretive comments derived from earlier Church Fathers. While such annotations can enrich our understanding of historical interpretation, they also complicate textual reconstruction. For instance, a scribe might copy an interpretive comment from a patristic source into the margin to clarify meaning, and a later copyist might mistakenly insert that comment into the main text.

This development highlights a shift from purely corrective marginal activity to exegetical engagement. The marginalia of this era mirror the intellectual environment of Christian learning, where biblical manuscripts were simultaneously objects of devotion, study, and transmission. Yet even in this context, the scribes’ primary responsibility remained faithful preservation. When these notes entered the text, it was not due to carelessness but to the complex visual environment of handwritten manuscripts, where the boundary between text and commentary was sometimes unclear.

Scribal Awareness and Marginal Notations of Variants

One of the most informative types of marginal note for textual criticism is the notation of variant readings. Scribes occasionally documented textual alternatives found in other manuscripts. These marginal annotations reflect an early awareness of textual diversity and an attempt to preserve this knowledge for future readers. An example occurs in some Byzantine manuscripts of the Gospels, where a marginal note reads ἐν ἄλλοις ἀντιγράφοις (“in other copies”) followed by a differing reading. Such notes provide direct testimony that scribes were comparing manuscripts and recording textual differences—an embryonic form of textual criticism within the manuscript tradition itself.

This scribal transparency contrasts sharply with modern misconceptions that ancient copyists were uncritical transmitters. On the contrary, many were deeply conscious of textual variation and recorded it faithfully. These annotations help modern scholars reconstruct the geographical and genealogical spread of textual variants. They also reveal that the process of textual refinement was deliberate and cumulative, guided by scribal discernment and respect for the sacred text.

The Relationship Between Marginal Notes and Textual Families

Marginal notes can also assist in classifying manuscripts into textual families. Certain marginal patterns are characteristic of specific traditions. Alexandrian manuscripts generally display sparse and disciplined marginal activity, emphasizing textual precision. Western manuscripts, by contrast, often contain abundant and interpretive marginalia, reflecting their tendency toward paraphrase and expansion. Byzantine manuscripts frequently include marginal harmonizations and cross-references, revealing an interest in consistency and doctrinal clarity.

By examining these marginal characteristics, scholars can trace the genealogical relationships between manuscripts. For instance, the similarity in marginal corrections between P75 and Codex Vaticanus indicates a shared textual ancestry. Likewise, recurring explanatory notes in later Byzantine copies may point to dependence on a common archetype. Thus, marginalia serve as secondary but valuable markers of textual lineage and development.

Scribal Training and the Marginal Note Tradition

The presence and quality of marginal notes also shed light on scribal education. In the early centuries, Christian scribes were often trained in professional scriptoria, where copying was a meticulous art. Marginal corrections and notes were part of this training, teaching scribes to engage critically with their exemplars. The scribe of P66, for example, demonstrates both orthographic competence and critical awareness, correcting his own work based on comparison with a superior exemplar. Such self-correction reflects both discipline and reverence for the text.

By contrast, later monastic scribes sometimes included extensive theological glosses in the margins, reflecting a less formalized but more interpretive scribal environment. The evolution from the precise Alexandrian method to the interpretive Byzantine practice underscores a broader shift in scribal culture—from transmission to exposition. Nevertheless, both traditions reveal deep respect for the sacred writings, even when their goals differed.

Marginal Notes as a Window into Scribal Theology

Although textual criticism seeks to recover the original wording of the New Testament, marginal notes often reveal the theological and cultural assumptions of those who copied it. For instance, doctrinally motivated marginal comments occasionally appear in manuscripts concerning Christological passages. Some marginal notes in later manuscripts attempt to explain or defend readings that affirm the deity of Christ, such as in John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16. These annotations show that scribes were not only transmitters but also interpreters who sought to strengthen theological orthodoxy.

John 1:18 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God[1] who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him fully known.

[1] The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

1 Timothy 3:16 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
16 And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness:
He was manifested in the flesh,[1]
vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

[1] Regarding 1 Timothy 3:16, the earliest and most reliable Greek witnesses—א* A* C* F G 33 Didymus—read ὃς ἐφανερώθη (“who was manifested”), the reading adopted by WH and NU and reflected in translations such as ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, TNIV, NEB, REB, NJB, NAB, NLT, HCSB, and NET. Codex D* preserves the variant ὃ ἐφανερώθη (“which was manifested”). The later Byzantine and Textus Receptus tradition reads θεὸς ἐφανερώθη (“God was manifested”), supported by אᶜ Ac C² D² Ψ 1739 Maj and represented in KJV and marginal notes of several modern versions. Few textual variants provoked as much nineteenth-century debate as this one, largely due to its doctrinal significance concerning the incarnation. When the Textus Receptus and KJV reading (“God was manifest in the flesh”) was challenged by the earlier form (“who was manifest in the flesh”), some feared that affirming the latter undermined belief in the deity of Christ. However, defenders of ὃς did so on purely textual grounds, recognizing that the “God” reading was a secondary emendation. The original hands of א*, A*, and C* wrote ὃς, later altered by correctors to θεός, and the same pattern is seen in Codex D, where the original ὃ was likewise corrected. Some have proposed that the confusion arose when a scribe misread ΟΣ (= ὃς) as Θ̅Σ̅ (the nomen sacrum for θεός), yet such an explanation is improbable given the scribes’ familiarity with nomina sacra. It is more plausible that later copyists intentionally altered the text to make the statement explicitly affirm that it was “God” who was manifested in the flesh. The original text, however, reads simply “who,” which translators rightly render “He,” referring contextually to Christ—whose deity was manifested through His humanity. All major English versions since the ASV (and the British ERV before it) follow this superior textual reading, while typically noting the variants in the margins.

However, it is crucial to distinguish between theological marginalia and doctrinally motivated textual changes. While marginal notes reflect interpretation, the main text in most cases remained stable. The overall manuscript tradition demonstrates remarkable consistency, particularly in the Alexandrian line, confirming that even when scribes expressed theological views in the margins, they preserved the inspired text with exceptional care.

The Critical Value of Marginal Notes for Modern Textual Study

Modern textual critics utilize marginal notes to reconstruct both the history of the text and the psychology of its transmission. Marginal annotations often preserve readings that would otherwise have been lost. When a marginal variant matches a reading found in an early papyrus or in a geographically distant textual witness, it provides confirmation of that variant’s antiquity. For instance, a marginal note in a twelfth-century minuscule that preserves a reading found in P75 suggests continuity of transmission rather than coincidence.

Moreover, marginal corrections can help identify the exemplar from which a manuscript was copied. If the same marginal corrections appear in several manuscripts, they may derive from a common ancestor that contained both the text and the marginal note. This method of analysis, known as “stemmatic reconstruction,” allows textual critics to trace the descent of manuscripts and evaluate their reliability.

The Transmission Integrity Reflected Through Marginal Activity

When the totality of evidence is considered, scribal marginal notes testify to the extraordinary care exercised in the transmission of the New Testament. Marginal annotations demonstrate awareness, precision, and a desire to preserve textual information rather than alter it. Even when glosses entered the text, they did so through understandable scribal processes rather than negligence. The existence of corrections, comparisons, and explanatory notes reveals a living textual tradition sustained by conscientious scribes who viewed their task as sacred stewardship.

The Alexandrian textual tradition, particularly as represented in P66, P75, and Codex Vaticanus, exemplifies the highest degree of scribal discipline. Marginal notes in these manuscripts are minimal and purposeful, reflecting a stable and early text closely aligned with the autographs. Later Byzantine marginalia, though more expansive, reveal the enduring concern of Christian scribes to interpret and preserve Scripture faithfully across centuries of transmission.

Conclusion

Scribal marginal notes occupy a crucial place in the study of New Testament textual transmission. They illuminate the methods, intentions, and theological awareness of those who copied the sacred writings. Far from being peripheral curiosities, marginalia provide direct evidence of the dynamic interaction between text and reader across nearly fifteen centuries of manuscript culture. Through their corrections, glosses, and recorded variants, scribes have left a parallel commentary on the text’s history—a commentary that confirms both the human diligence and divine providence that safeguarded the New Testament through generations of faithful transmission.

Marginal notes thus serve as both a reflection of scribal care and a witness to textual continuity. Their study reinforces the conclusion that the New Testament text has been preserved with exceptional accuracy, and that even the peripheral marks left in its margins contribute to our confidence in recovering the original words of the inspired authors.

You May Also Enjoy

The Preservation of Pauline Vocabulary in the Manuscripts

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS