Talk:List of manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

British Library Low‑importance

	This article is related to the British Library. Please copy assessments of the article from the most relevant WikiProject template to this one as needed.British LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/British LibraryTemplate:WikiProject British LibraryBritish Library-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notes

The Bradfer-Lawrence ms is presumably now here, but I can't see it in the index. Mike Christie (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colgrave (p. lv) says that the McClean 109 ms was owned by "Thomas, Lord Fairfax" in the late seventeenth century. This could be either the third or fifth lord. I am leaving it ambiguous. Mike Christie (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The John Thoresby mentioned with reference to McClean 109 is presumably the son of Ralph Thoresby, but Colgrave is not explicit so I am leaving this out. Mike Christie (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Dobbie is only visible in snippets in Google Books; he characterized other groups than the Digby group, and I wonder if those names can be used here -- e.g. for "Second southern group". Mike Christie (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

List of manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica#Rochester group says "Cambridge, Trinity College R. 7. 3. Early 1th century." But the "1th" Century was before Bede's time. Art LaPella (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistency

There are inconsistency in the article: 1th is not the truth. It may be 1st or it may be 4th, 5th ... It is possible that the number is wrong, or the “th” is wrong. I do not know what of that is wrong or true. Please check it. --Diwas (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" on the resting places of English saints"

The second group is characterized by, among other things, the inclusion of an Old English text on the resting places of English saints.

I inserted a link to Secgan, but I am not now 100% sure whether this is the same text. I was confused for a minute because there is apparently a text by Bede known as "On the Resting Places", but this is actually "On the Resting Places of the Children of Israel", viz. on an unrelated topic. --dab (𒁳) 11:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]