Talk:Codex Vaticanus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Codex Vaticanus 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 16, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
September 15, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Codex Vaticanus. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 05:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

2 Peter numeration[edit]

The article said:

2 Peter has no numeration, leading to the conclusion that the system of divisions dates prior to the time the Epistle came to be commonly regarded as canonical.[1]

  1. ^ Gregory, Caspar René (1900). Textkritik des Neuen Testaments. 1. Leipzig: Hinrichs. pp. 33 ff. 

And I still find the claim repeated in the late 20th century.[1][2] However, more recent sources that have clearly studied the manuscript at first hand indicate an original numeration of two chapters in 2 Peter,[3][4] so that it is not really treated differently from the other epistles. My guess is that the older sources were working from the pseudo-facsimile, which seems to have omitted the numeration in 2 Peter, rather than the actual manuscript.[5] But perhaps someone more knowledgeable in these matter could kindly confirm.

  1. ^ Metzger, Bruce M.; Ehrman, Bart D. (1985). The Text of the New Testament (4 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 69. ISBN 9785885009010. 
  2. ^ Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark (1992). The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. Oxford: Clarendon. p. 165. ISBN 9780198263418. 
  3. ^ Goswell, Greg (2011). "An early commentary on the Pauline Corpus: the capitulation of Codex Vaticanus" (PDF). Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism. 8: 53. 
  4. ^ Lockett, Darian R. (2017). Letters from the Pillar Apostles: The Formation of the Catholic Epistles as a Canonical Collection. Eugene OR: Pickwick. p. 121. ISBN 9781620327562. 
  5. ^ pseudo-facsimile vs. facsimile

SlothMcCarty (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)