He could have been one who was not familiar with the Greek tongue, else how
would we explain the apparent misplacement of words?
Apparently, this has been corrected by other textual critics. With a
comparison with other copies, readings were corrected since it was apparent
that his use of AUTOS was quite pathetic!
But for the most part, it was still a good transcription.
Perhaps it was a student's copy (which was later corrected by a head
teacher). The student might be learning to be a transcriber and what
better way to practice than with a popular and lengthy document as the book
of Acts extant at that time.
Just my thoughts. There are many angles to textual criticism particularly
the apparent degree of difficulty involved in transciption, dictation,
copying and re-editing. But the best assumption that would still remain
is, he strives to make a perfect copy of the source. That's what we do
nowadays, anyway, especially with the invention of the photocopy machine!