Talk:Codex Alexandrinus

      Good article Codex Alexandrinus has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
      June 23, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
                This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
      WikiProject Bible (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
      WikiProject icon
      Portal icon Bible portal
      This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
       GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
       High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
       
      WikiProject Christianity (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
      WikiProject icon
      Portal icon Christianity portal
      This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
       GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
       Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
       
      WikiProject Religion (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
      WikiProject icon
      Portal icon Religion portal
      This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
       GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
       Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
       
      WikiProject Religious texts (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
      WikiProject icon
      Portal icon Religion portal
      This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing this article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
       GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
       Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
       
      British Library project (Rated GA-class)
      WikiProject icon
      Portal icon British Library portal
      This article is related to the British Library. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.
       GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
       ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
       
      Maintained The following editors are available to help with questions about verification and sources in relation to this article:
      Leszek Jańczuk
      This in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

      Weasely sentence?

      while the corresponding portion of John is a lacuna, scholars posit that the Pericope Adulteræ was not included in the text based on space calculations.

      This information is listed in the introduction to textual criticism texts by Metzger and Aland. If it had a citation, would it be less weasely? What exactly is wrong with it, and how could it be changed to improve it? I think deleting this information was uncalled for.--Andrew c 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

      Look here:
      Please enumerate lines and verses of the text, and you wil have an assurance, this text was omitted by scribe. Two pages it is to little to hide 12 omitted verses. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
      ↑Jump back a section

      Septuagint: say again?

      Hello, I can't tell if the article is contradicting itself or if I am merely misreading it. The article says:

      Three volumes contain the Septuagint, Greek version of the Old Testament, with the complete loss of only ten leaves. The fourth volume contains the New Testament with 31 leaves lost. The codex contains a complete copy of the LXX, including the deuterocanonical books 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151 and the 14 Odes.

      So does that mean that a person can reconstruct the Septuagint by looking at a different volume of the Codex when a lacuna is found? If so, I think this paragraph should be reworded to make it more clear. Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

      Thanks for the heads up. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
      ↑Jump back a section

      Mark 16

      How does the Alexandrius handle the text of Mark 16:9-20? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.30.15 (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

      See here: Mark 15:37-16:16 and Mark 16:17-20. Codex Alexandrinus represents the Byzantine tradition in the Gospels, problem with ending have only the Alexandrian manuscripts. Here is no place for detail explanations, see Mark 16. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

      ↑Jump back a section

      Inconsistency on date?

      The opening paragraph identifies Codex Alexandrinus as "5th century," but later in the discussion of date, we are given a number of reasons to date the manuscript to the fourth century and are told that it cannot be later than the beginning of the fifth century. Clearly there's some controversy here, I would like to know more about why the manuscript is dated as 5th century in most of the sources I look at.

      Marti Steussy (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Marti Steussy

      ↑Jump back a section

      Digitised version made available

      The BL's digitised copy of the fourth volume (ie, the New Testament element) has been posted in full to the Digitised Manuscripts site - see here. Any objections to my replacing/supplementing the CSTM link with this? Andrew Gray (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

      ...and since added :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
      ↑Jump back a section
      Last modified on 17 December 2012, at 12:39