Talk:Categories of New Testament manuscripts

Direct quotations

There are too many unattributed direct quotations in this article. I'm going to paraphrase the text.-Andrew c 20:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Eclectic = Caesarean?

Isn't "Category III - Eclectic" a synonym for the Caesarean text-type? If so, I think that should be stated. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think so. I added {{one source}} to note this entire article is based on a 1982 categorization scheme. More recent scholarship I've seen identifies four categories, with Caesarean replacing "Eclectic". Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Dating confusion

I randomly sampled 8 or so internal links to various papyri articles, and in 6 of them there was disagreement between the listing, dating in the article, and source the article uses. Would it be prudent to reformat the year list so that instead of row headers stating things like "200", "250", and "400", the row headers should read "0-199", "200-249", "250-299" ect. Eric the fever (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Description of categories (IV and V)

"Category IV – Western

Category IV contains the few manuscripts that follow the text of the Codex Bezae (D). These texts are of the Western text-type.

Category V – Byzantine Byzantine and mostly Byzantine texts fall under this category. "

Please compare the description of these two categories with the preceding three categories. The last two descriptions merely account for which texts are included, yet neglect to inform the reader of the actual description of the category. There should be some corresponding information provided to the reader that describes these two categories in a manner similar to the three preceding categories. There should be a brief account of these categories are important (or not important) to textual consideration, considering textual problems, or in discussing the history of textual traditions. As it currently stands, these last two descriptions are not adequately describing the categories, leaving the reader to properly presume, based on the text, that the categorization is arbitrary, rather than rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.30.100.86 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC) 45.30.100.86 (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Textus Receptus missing

Textus Receptus should be mentioned in the article. Misty MH (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as though the TR is in itself a critical edition of the Greek New Testament, and not a manuscript which could be classified under a "Greek Manuscript" classification system, I fail to see why it need mentioning on this article, when it is purely to do with the Alands opinion of manuscripts circa 1990. Stephen Walch (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Manuscript categories table discrepancies

Other than manuscripts published later than NA26, there seems to perhaps be a small amount of mixups between Alands' 1995 and the categories table in this article with no further information or citations. I've tried cleaning it up a bit, but there might still be a small amount of manuscripts out of place (including the number of manuscripts table). VistaSunset (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)