Talk:Codex Washingtonianus

Unreliable source

I removed from the article this:

In November of 1906, a parchment codex (sheepskin paged, bound book) with painted wooden covers was dug up from the sands of Egypt. It was found in sand filled ruins of a city vacated about 200 A.D. at a place called Soknopaiou Nesos (Dimet, or Dimai). [1]

Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Skąd Pan wie, że this source is a « completely unreliable source » ? --Budelberger (   ) 13:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

Bo czytam takich autorów jak np. Hurtado (jeden z najlepszych znawców kodeksu w naszych czasach). Ponadto nie można lekceważyć paleografii w takim stopniu, w jakim to czyni ten "source". Paleograficzne studia wyraźnie pokazują, że kodeks jest o jedną albo dwie generację młodszy niż Vaticanus i Sinaiticus. Kodeks zawiera też pewne karty dodane później (W^supp), prawdopodobnie w VI wieku. Rękopis zawiera też wiele wariantów tekstowych, które nie mogły istnieć w II wieku. II wiek w ogóle nie wchodzi w rachubę. Rękopis mógł zostać ukryty w ruinach nie istniejącego miasta w wieku VII na przykład, ale nie wiemy też skąd tak naprawdę ten rękopis został wzięty. Mamy wierzyć handlarzowi? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okaye, but don't you think that your opinion (and others' opinion) is also a personal point of view ? Instead of abrupt removing, say instead : « Some (Dr Lee Woodard, a published even unreliable source) say that this codex is… »… --Budelberger (   ) 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

Dr Lee Woodard is not expert, opinions of Metzger, Aland, Comfort, and Hurtado are more important. They are real experts. But I can give also some paleographical arguments. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that he is no expert? He does have a doc from an accredited university, to be sure doc of min, not Ph.D. It looks like he has done some research, and specially on W. I don't know that Metzger or Aland, etc. are specialists in W as apparently Woodard is. Do you have some reference to where Metzger, Aland, etc. deny the claim that "n November of 1906, a parchment codex (sheepskin paged, bound book) with painted wooden covers was dug up from the sands of Egypt. It was found in sand filled ruins of a city vacated about 200 A.D. at a place called Soknopaiou Nesos (Dimet, or Dimai)"??? (EnochBethany (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC))

You should read books like this. Forget about Woodar. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsupplied Details

The censored material from Lee W. Woodard indicates that this article could be improved by addressing the contents of the censored material:

If not dug up on November of 1906, when?

i if not on sheepskin, on what?

was it not paged?

surely one does not deny that it was a codex, a bound book; but if not what was it?

if not painted, was it unpainted?

if not wooden covers, were they bronze or what?

if not dug up, how was it preserved?

if not from the sands of Egypt, from where? the mud off Canada?

if not sand-filled jars, what were they filled with, pickled pigs feet?

if not in the ruins of a city, was it from a flourishing metropolis or a backward village?

if not from a city vacated in 200 AD, when was the city vacated?

if not Soknopaiou was it Moscow or where?

(EnochBethany (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC))

Addition of Matthew 23:3 variant

In the list of notable variants which W supports, I added Matthew 23:3b, where the UBS (ℵ2 B L Z Θ 0281 892) reads ποιήσατε καὶ τηρεῖτε vs the Textus Receptus's τηρεῖν, τηρεῖτε καὶ ποιεῖτε. I find it interesting because whereas the UBS reading requires that ποιήσατε be an imperative, the TR & W allow a present indicative (τηρεῖτε is ambiguous as either indicative or imperative). (EnochBethany (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC))

It is not important reading. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Codex Washingtonianus. 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/20091219231448/http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_032 to http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_032
• Added archive https://archive.is/20090716235935/http://www.beloit.edu/classics/GospelOfMark/ to http://www.beloit.edu/classics/GospelOfMark/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)