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).

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 (Wsupp), 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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)