|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.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|The following editors are available to help with questions about verification and sources in relation to this article:
Leszek JańczukThis in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
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:
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)
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)
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
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)