Talk:Biblical manuscript

Things to do

There needs to be a paragraph about scribes and how the books were physically transmitted. It would also be nice to have a sentence about Nomina sacra and a sentence about punctuation, breathing marks. I think the illuminated manuscript paragraph could be expanded, and so could the section on title/chapter/verse development. Looking at the cataloging section, it seems like I added too much detail. What do others think? -Andrew c 18:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I love a man who is willing to do the work he thinks needs to be done! I'll try to make an effort to flesh out the Tanakh section, especially as you've provided nice images for it. ;) We're going to need someone else to come in and assess this, this article should be pushed to FA. It's got to be top importance for WikiProject Bible, and deserves some priority, especially with so much done already. Alastair Haines 23:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

PS 220 biblical mss from Qumran at a more recent count ... arggh, guess I'm going to be compiling that list at some point too. lol. Alastair Haines 00:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I like your subheadings better than mine. The more descriptive headings make it clearer that they are SUB headings. The eye picks up the slightly smaller font size better too. Sorry about the edit conflict! ;) Alastair Haines 02:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize. I'm glad you picked up some of my errors, and your work has already improved the article greatly. Thanks for all your help.-Andrew c 02:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why can't I add new topic? DocMando (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Tanakh 220 manuscripts

In the Biblical manuscript article, it is mentioned that 220 manuscripts of the 800 dead sea scroll manuscripts are from the Tanakh. I was looking at the list of Tanakh portions from Qumran in the Tanakh at Qumran article and the list of portions add up to be 207, if I did the math write. Is the list of Tanakh portions from Qumran the list of the 220 tanakh manuscripts? If so then where are the other 13? please clearify the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdgeist84 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly recommend this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls.

All Qumran and Tanakh here (Biblical manuscript page) should link to the Wikipedia real page about the oldest known Tanakh (Old Testament) manuscripts. Unlike this page, it is ordered and does not try to drown the Tanakh in an ocean of younger, less relevant, new testament info; it is detailed, has pictures, descriptions, history of the findings, just like one can see in a museum. I especially like the sequential list of arqueological finds containing Old Testament (Tanakh) texts.

Now, you asked about the exact number of scrolls. I've bad news for you, sorry: any number of scrolls is a guess. There are tens of thousands of fragments (perhaps more, IDK).

The conundrum is like this: Are a couple of unmatched fragments to be considered "one manuscript"? Why? Why not? What about 10 fragments that seem to be from one and the same page? What about 100 fragments in parchment of the exact same age, color, taste, and smell but in different handwritings? Should they count as a scroll only when a complete chapter was found? Maybe with at least XX% complete?

There's no single criteria to count a group of fragments as "a scroll". Scientists may be unanimous sometimes, but they do disagree either. In the end, some cases will settle/negotiate to a consensus, but not all. Some cases will raise dissent - and their number determines the range where the total count lies.

Lastly, science is permanently provisional, narratives, counts, facts... all can change when new data comes to light - and when old lies are debunked. Sysfxx (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Improper header capitalization, but more—improper capitalization throughout article as well

Moved from User talk:Gene Nygaard
"von Soden" was correct, lide de Muralt in French or "van den Berg" in Dutch. You can not write De Muralt (rather Monsieur de Muralt). In English you can write Mac Coy, Mac Donald, but "von" you cannot write with capital letter. It is German, not English. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
End of moved part

This is, of course, English Wikipedia, and you should show some respect for the English language and its rules. In this particular case, however, it isn't even anything peculiar to the English language.

Von Soden should always have an initial capital V when it starts a sentence, just like anything else. (Not only in English, but in French, German, Dutch, and many other languages.) We don't capitalize copper all the time, but we do when it starts a sentence. We don't capitalize the SI unit newton all the time, but we do when it starts a sentence.

Von Soden should always have an initial capital V when that V is the first letter of a Wikipedia header, just like anything else.

But in this case it is also much more than that. Von Soden should start with a V when it starts a sentence, but also it should be Von Soden with a capital V any time this surname is not preceded by a given name or a title.

See, for example, United States Government Printing Office Style Manual, Chapter 3, Capitalization rules:[1]

• 3.13. In foreign names such particles as d', da, de, della, den, du, van, and von are capitalized unless preceded by a forename or title. Individual usage, if ascertainable, should be followed.

Da Ponte; Cardinal da Ponte

Den Uyl; Johannes den Uyl; Prime Minister den Uyl

Du Pont; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

Van Rensselaer; Stephen van Rensselaer

Von Braun; Wernher von Braun

but d'Orbigny; Alcide d'Orbigny; de la Madrid; Miguel de la Madrid

Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There are about 200 articles linked to this section. We should change links. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Before we do a whole lot of that (I've done some), somebody better look into it a little more. Judging by some of those already existing links (e.g., at Minuscule 2815, picking one I haven't edited), it appears that Baron Hermann von Soden may be like Ludwig van Beethoven, who is referred to by surname alone as "Beethoven" and not "Van Beethoven", with the Baron and his numbering scheme referred to as "Soden" numbering. So maybe what should happen is that the section header here should be first changed to either "Soden" or "Hermann von Soden" or "Soden numbering" before the links to the section are changed, and we should figure out the best text to use in the visible display on those pages.

Can you find anything more about usage in that regard? What do you think it should be? Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think, I have ever seen "Van Beethoven" in texts, only "Ludvig van Beethoven" or "Beethoven", but "von Soden" is used by many texts. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Where These Documents are Held

It would be really nice to have the museums, libraries, etc. that contain these fragments and manuscripts listed alongside their names so that one can get a feel for where the research takes place. Does anyone have this information and want to add it? 205.170.134.65 (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you click on any of the "Listings" pages, there is a column for where the manuscript is housed. This is only for the NT manuscripts though.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Error = variations

"Ancient Jewish scribes developed many practices to protect copies of their scriptures from error. Their methods resulted in significant variations among texts arising at an average rate of just under one consonant in every 1,500."

The second sentence seems to contradict the first. Unless you interpolate a middle sentence: "unfortunately, these practices backfired specatcularly." jnestorius^(talk) 18:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Featurization?

I'm not really familiar with the featured-article criteria, but it seems that it wouldn't take an awful amount of work to turn this into an FA (I see that such was being discussed in 2007, above). What do others think? Deor (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

I have been perusing religion articles, and see Biblical and biblical. I lean towards Biblical if it refers to the Bible, as in the heading of this talk page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biblical manuscript article." Please leave your opinion so we can reach a consensus for a consistency for all the articles. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

These quotes are from United States Government Printing Office Style Manual

"Proper names 3.2. Proper names are capitalized.

        Rome                  John Macadam             Italy  
        Brussels              Macadam family           Anglo-Saxon  

Derivatives of proper names 3.3. Derivatives of proper names used with a proper meaning are capitalized.

        Roman (of Rome)       Johannean                Italian" 

Also:

"Religious terms 3.33. Words denoting the Deity except who, whose, and whom; names for

       the Bible and other sacred writings and their parts; names of 
       confessions of faith and of religious bodies and their 
       adherents; and words specifically denoting Satan are all 
       capitalized. 

       Heavenly Father; the Almighty; Lord; Th ee; Thou; He; Him; but 
           himself; You, Your; Thy, Thine; [God's] fatherhood 
       Mass; red Mass; Communion 
       Divine Father; but divine providence; divine guidance; divine 
           service 
       Son of Man; Jesus' sonship; the Messiah; but a messiah; 
           messiahship; messianic; messianize; christology; 
           christological 
       Bible, Holy Scriptures, Scriptures, Word; Koran; also Biblical; 
           Scriptural; Koranic 
       New Testament; Ten Commandments 
       Gospel (memoir of Christ); but gospel music 
       Apostles' Creed; Augsburg Confession; Thirty-nine Articles 
       Episcopal Church; an Episcopalian; Catholicism; a Protestant 
       Christian; also Christendom; Christianity; Christianize"

So it appears that one should use Biblical and Scriptural. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MOS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents, which says "normally biblical". Deor (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note also that there are several instances of lowercase biblical in the article that you didn't capitalize. The Manual of Style clearly says "be consistent within an article", so I'm returning the article to consistency. Deor (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus needed

Please leave your vote regarding this issue. Biblical can be used either way. When it merely refers to books, it is not capitalzed, but when referring to the Bible, it is, in my opinion. Please leave my last edit intact until we reach a consensus. This issue affects many articles, and should be resolved by a consensus. Thank you R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is not the place to make changes to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. These issues should be discussed on the Manual of Style's talk page. Ltwin (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible?

Listed under the "Hebrew Bible" section are the Vulgate and Septuagint manuscripts whose Old Testament contains rather more than just the Tanakh. Describing these contents as "Hebrew" is quite a stretch. I propose changing the name of the section to "Old Testament". Rwflammang (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rwflammang. Either have a different section for each type (ie, Hebrew Tanakh, Syriac Peshitta, Greek Old Testament), or just have a title "Old Testament" instead. (Stephen Walch (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Flip side of that, I don't feel comfortable calling the Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex, "Old Testaments". -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Then have two sections: Old Testament and Hebrew Tanakh - don't have to clump them altogether, especially when it doesn't work that way (Stephen Walch (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

It should also be pointed out that the Aleppo Codex, marked 'Complete' is actually only about 60% complete. Dwlegg (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Original Text

I've been raised with Christian ideas and faith, I believe the intentions are good.

I consider Biblcial text as historic instead of instructive because I've been born with God-given principals.

I am not a biblical sketpic, but I am a biblical curisious

Are there any specimens of any original writings?

It's been almost 2000 years since Christ died, about 1900 years since the writers of the New Testament wrote their testaments.

Paper and ink does fade, erode and degrade over time.

What is the oldest original writing of any biblical manuscript and what are the other exiting manuscripts?

Where are any original manuscripts or codex? DaveShaver (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC) DaveShaver

August edit war

There's a bit of WP:edit warring in progress, not making much overall progress but spending a lot of effort thrashing back and forth.
May I make a few friendly requests of the participants?

1. Please cite the sources of significant new changes to the content of the article. A recent edit summary claimed that “there is no need for reference”. Sorry, for Wikipedia, there is a need for references.
2. Please use edit summaries more often, or, ideally, with every edit. Many recent edits have changed content with no hint at all as to where that information came from. When the old content was well-sourced and the changes cite no sources, the overall reliability and verifiability of the article suffers. When such an edit also has no edit summary, the loss is unexplained and unjustified, and some watchers will want to revert the edit for those reasons alone. Bottom line, more edit summaries, more communication, perhaps less edit warring.
3. Some of (the few) edit summaries have made claims such as “accurate information provided” and “its common knowledge”. Clearly not everyone shares the same common knowledge. Would the parties like to discuss the contents of those changes on their merits? There's plenty of space here on the Talk page.
    Unician ∇  05:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Greek

I noticed that one of the lines being reverted and re-reverted is the first line of the table under “Extant Tanakh manuscripts” concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls. The disagreement seems to be about whether to include Greek in the list of languages.

This article has included “Greek (Septuagint)” in that line since October 2008. Now, in recent edits, Greek has been removed four times (1, 2, 3, 4), restored three times (1, 2, 3), and modified twice (1, 2).

Our own article on the Dead Sea Scrolls mentions Greek fragments found in cave 7, and that fragment 7Q1 is from the Book of Exodus, but doesn't explicitly say that 7Q1 is from a Greek translation of Exodus. Does 7Q1 let us list Greek in the Tanakh / Dead Sea Scrolls line?

 Unician ∇  23:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Seeing no objection (or even any comment at all) after more than two weeks, I'm going to restore the mention of Greek fragments being present among the Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries, as this article has reported for the past six years. The case for explicitly naming the Septuagint seems less clear, so for now, I'm not going to restore “Septuagint” to the text.  Unician ∇  22:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Masoretic Tanakh texts - dates wrong?

I may be reading the table incorrectly, but the section for the Tanakh manuscripts shows what I can only see as an impossible date for the earliest composition regarding the Masoretic texts. Since the Masoretes did their work between 500 and 1,000 AD/CE, how could they have possibly composed something in 100 AD/CE? Was this column entry meant to convey earliest composition of a specific Masoretic text?Electprogeny (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Curious about early manuscript of the Gospel of Mark

Does anyone have sources regarding what became of this? Link: http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-testament-manscript-first-century.

As a general FYI, I also posted a comment on the personal Website of Daniel B. Wallace. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biblical manuscript. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081231104440/http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ to http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140312191807/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/Papyri-list.html to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/Papyri-list.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(2nd–3rd century) ?

In the "Date" column, is it really necessary or useful to add a broad description like "(2nd–3rd century)" after a more specific description like "c. 175-225" has been asserted?

It doesn't seem to be there to represent some scholarly disagreement, that perhaps some people want to keep open dates from 101-300 for serious consideration. It just seems to be there to do the "century" translation for us which really isn't necessary, nor is it done consistently in other history articles.

It really is unnecessary clutter. --23.119.204.117 (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

77 not "complete"

Why does this sentence suggest #77 is complete when the pictures of it in its article show that it is obviously just couple of fragments.

"The dry climate of Egypt allowed some papyrus manuscripts to be partially preserved, but, with the exception of P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}} {\mathfrak {P}}77, no New Testament papyrus manuscript is complete..."

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

MSS

Biblical scholars often use the abbreviate MSS. I think we should include it here., "A manuscript is abbreviated MS for singular and MSS for plural." --evrik ^(talk) 17:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want to use abbreviations in the table and add an explanatory footnote at first use, I wouldn't object; but forcing an explanation into the prose above the table is just weird and, as I said, comes across as a non sequitur. You could also just wikilink the first occurrence of "MS" to the Manuscript article, where the abbreviations are explained in the first line—that seems to be what's done with possibly unfamiliar abbreviations elsewhere in Wikipdia, as with "op." in classical music articles, for instance, or with "c." for circa. (Personally, I tend to think that the abbreviations are sufficiently familiar and transparent that no explanation is necessary, as with "pp." for pages or "St." for Saint.) Deor (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)