Category talk:Bible versions and translations

[Untitled]
There are several articles in this category that might not belong here. (See list below.) All of these are of individual manuscripts of the Bible or a portion thereof. They are not, for the most part, different versions or translations of the text but merely copies of the text. The one exception might be the Lindisfarne Gospels, as it includes a interlinear gloss in Old English. However the main text is the Vulgate. There are a huge number of manuscripts of the Bible, or parts of the Bible. (To get an idea of how many there are, see List of illuminated manuscripts.) Is the intention of this category to include every biblical manuscript? (If so it probably needs a different name)

The list: Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Amiatinus, Codex Argenteus, Codex Bezae, Codex Calixtinus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Fuldensis, Codex Koridethi, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Fécamp Bible, La Cava Bible, Lindisfarne Gospels, Morgan Bible, Morgan Bible, Papyrus 46, Peresopnytsia Gospel

Dsmdgold 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I first renamed Category:New Testament manuscripts to Category:Biblical manuscritps, and have since moved all bible manuscripts and fragments to that cat. I also created a subcat for the Gospel Books. This category is still confusing because it has text types, general historic editions (such as Peshitta, Septuagint, Vulgate, etc), contemporary foreign language translations, historic english editions, and a large number of english bible versions. While we don't have a giagantic category (only ~130 items), I would propose making a category just for english versions, and leaving this parent cat for the hodgepodge. What do people think of my past actions, and my proposal?--Andrew c 23:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)