Talk:Eusebian Canons

Move?
What do people think of moving to Eusebian Canons? It is the more used term by contemporary scholars. (this is a good reason why, even though in the public domain, the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't always a good source for article text).-Andrew c [talk] 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the term I was familiar with, but I did a quick ghit search & the Ammonian sections came out on top. But if you are right, then yes. Johnbod 01:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A JSTOR search yields 9 hits for Ammonian, but 25 hits for Eusebian. Also, the most recent hit for Ammonian is from 1959, while Eusebian is mentioned multiple times in the 90s and 80s. Anyway, I like the images and expansion you added to the article, good work. -Andrew c [talk] 01:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm for moving then. Johnbod 01:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as the redirect from canon tables works then I'm fine. Seriously, I have read Eusebian much more Ammonian. However, my approach has always been from the art historical side. On those lines, I would bet that most of the incoming links will be from individual manuscripts. As a guy who writes a lot of those articles, I can tell you that I use the phrase "Eusebian canon tables" a lot. Dsmdgold 22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They will be unaffected - I also categorised the redirect in the IM category. Andrew, I think we have a working majority, let's do it. Johnbod 12:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, the move is complete.-Andrew c [talk] 14:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Quidam?
Ammonius quidam in Latin means "a certain Ammonius". Surely this is not a Latin name for the ammonian sections? Does anyone have a reference for this? In my Vulgate these are called canones Evangeliorum, "the canons of the Gospels". Rwflammang 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't know. Is it a quote from the letter of Eusebius? Anyway I will remove the reference. Johnbod 23:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Eusebian tables
1. The text states that canon 5 is Matt. & Luke; and canon 6 is Matt. & Mark — but the matrix shows 5 to be Matt. & Mark and 6 to be Matt. & Luke ... i.e. they've been juxtaposed! Moreover, canon 9 (according to the text) is "Luke, John" - but according to the matrix it's "Mark, John". Which is correct: the text or the matrix?

2. The order of the gospels is always Matt., Mark, Luke, John ... so it's odd that canon 8 is "Luke, Mark", not "Mark, Luke"!

Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)