Template:Did you know nominations/Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1
- ... that Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1, a manuscript of the New Testament, was marked with red chalk for it to be used as a page-template for the first published printed edition of the New Testament?
- Source: Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose; Edward Miller (1894). A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. Vol. 1 (4th ed.). London: George Bell & Sons. p. 191.
- Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by Stephen Walch (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Stephen Walch (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC).
The hook as currently written may be too specialist for general readers; as in, it may be hard to understand for those unfamiliar with the relevant fields (in this case, Biblical studies). The hook fact itself might still have potential, it's just that the hook probably needs rephrasing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- How about:
- that a manuscript of the New Testament called Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1, was used as a page-template for the first published printed edition of the New Testament by its editor, Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus?
- Or:
- that Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus used Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1 as a page template for his first published printed edition of the New Testament, marking it with red chalk?
- Want to try and get a mention of the red-chalk marks in if possible :D Stephen Walch (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I still think the hook is rather specialist or too reliant on being familiar with Biblical studies. I'm not sure who else to ask for help with, so I'll see if I can ask for help over at WT:DYK regarding a hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot grasp the importance of the red chalk from either the hook or the article. From the article, red chalk was used to mark changes, by one or more people. What makes this so unusual that it is worth mentioning in the hook? Did texts not often get changes, or is there something unusual about the material? CMD (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @User:Chipmunkdavis - Ancient manuscripts aren't usually written on or marked up by anyone these days: the idea that someone would mark or deface an artefact fills most modern people with dread; that a written manuscript of the NT was, to quote Scrivener, "barbarously scored with red chalk" is quite telling of this even from the 19th century. The MS and how it was used is also very important in the history of printed books, as this was the manuscript used for the first ever published printed Greek NT. Evidently I need to think of a how to word the hook to get this across. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot grasp the importance of the red chalk from either the hook or the article. From the article, red chalk was used to mark changes, by one or more people. What makes this so unusual that it is worth mentioning in the hook? Did texts not often get changes, or is there something unusual about the material? CMD (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)