Talk:Codex Amiatinus

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms 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.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin 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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Bible Low‑importance

	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.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statement is erroneous

The Wikipedia entry says: As was standard in all Vulgate bibles until the 9th century, the Book of Baruch is absent[2] as is the Letter of Jeremiah

There are several issues here:

The claim is directly contradicted by its own source in Catholic Encyclopedia, which reads: "The codex (or pandect) is usually said to contain the whole Bible; but it should be noted that the Book of Baruch is missing, though the Epistle of Jeremias, usually incorporated with it, is here appended to the Book of Jeremias.[[1]]. So, the Wikipedia entry is wrong to claim that the Letter of Jeremiah is not included in the codex -- at least, based on this source.
It is misleading, since the article in Catholic Encyclopedia says nothing about what was "standard in all Vulgate bibles until the 9th century". Where is the author getting that from? What is the source?
Finally, how can the author even claim: "As was standard in all Vulgate bibles until the 9th century . . . " But, by what standard? Codex Amiatinus is the only Vulgate codex we have from that time-period which contains the complete (more or less) Old Testament. On what evidence is the author basing his claim that Am's ommission of Baruch was "standard" for that time-period? Maybe, the author is correct about it, but a citation is needed here.Mwidunn (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)mwidunn[reply]

The Catholic Encyclopedia article is wrong on this - after all, it was written over a century ago. The correct information is in the Stuttgart Vulgate; which states baldly that the Vulgate Book of Baruch (including the Letter of Jeremiah) is not found before Theodulf of Orleans. I have added an additional reference to Bogaert's article on the history of Baruch in the Latin tradition. The Book of Baruch is also absent from the León palimpsest and all the Alcuin pandects; as well as the 8th century bibles of Paris, St Gall and Orleans. It is first found in the Codex Cavensis (in the Old Latin, not Vulgate, version); but there is provided with a preface that states that it is additional to the canon. TomHennell (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest?

"It ... is the earliest complete one-volume Latin Bible to survive, only the León palimpsest being older". So is it, or is it not, the the earliest complete one-volume Latin Bible to survive?

It is the earliest Latin Bible that survives complete - the Leon palimpsest (being a palimpsest) survives now only in portions. TomHennell (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

This page contains plagiarized text directly from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04081a.htm. I am not skilled enough to flag the article, but will leave this so someone can edit the offending text.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pseudorious (talk • contribs) 21:38, 9 December 2006.

Please read the disclaimer at the bottom of the article page: This article incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia. Also see template:catholic for more information.--Andrew c 04:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monasteries

Abbazia di Sant'Anthimo ≠ Abbazia di San Salvatore, Monte Amiata - fixed. HeartofaDog 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letter of Jeremiah

I note that the article - which chiefly reproduces that in the Catholic Encyclopedia, states that the Letter of Jermiah is present in Amiatinus - where my reading of Bogaert is that it is not - indeed that Lamentations (counted as part of Jeremiah) continues the text without a break. Can any other editor clarify? TomHennell (talk)

In Codex Amiatinus, the Letter of Jeremiah is attached to the end of the Book of Jeremiah. As for Bogaert: Where? To which of his works are you referring?Mwidunn (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)mwidunn[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Codex Amiatinus. 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/20090803165921/http://www.florin.ms/AlphabetBible.html to http://www.florin.ms/AlphabetBible.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://opac.bmlonline.it/Record.htm?record=120012494829

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]