Talk:List of New Testament Latin manuscripts

Welcome
Please use the "edit" button to the right to make any comments or suggestions. Even better, edit the article directly. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions
These are a few thoughts on reading the article: PiCo (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since this is now an article and not just a list, I'd suggest renaming it "New Testament Latin Manuscripts"
 * The section "Old Latin" could then be renamed "List of New Testament Latin Manuscripts (if that's indeed what it is)
 * The section heading "Clarification" seems rather odd - clarification of what? I'd suggest renaming it "Overview"
 * I think the subsection "Editions" could be turned into a list too, though I don't know just what it would look like - perhaps only two columns.

A little later: Ok, I now have a better idea of what's meant by Old Latin. It seems, then, that the list should be labeled "Old Latin manuscripts." But where's the matching list labeled "Vulgate manuscripts"? PiCo (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Vulgate list will come. Things are complicated because Vetus Latina and Vulgate already exist as articles. Essentially, I have two motives: 1. Adding to the List of New Testament manuscripts articles and 2. Providing a more extended Bibliography than the articles mentioned have space for.
 * At the moment I think the best solution might be to merge the text into Vetus Latina, create a new List of New Testament Vetus Latina manuscripts and List of New Testament Vulgate manuscripts, and make the current namespace a disambiguation of the Old Latin and the Vulgate lists. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with PiCo about renaming this article. I wouldn't worry too much about the Vulgate and Vetus Latina articles, you are covering a lot of new ground here that is probably too specific to be included in those articles. Rwflammang (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for this feedback gentlemen, I really don't know what to do about namespaces, I think all our ideas have pros and cons. I think I'll end up going your way, Rwflammang, since you know this area of Wiki better than I. Perhaps the three articles New Testament Latin manuscripts, Vetus Latina and Vulgate will interact substantially over time. I'll stick to loading up sources, links, lists and other content, and leave it mainly to others to apportion (or copy) this where they think it to be useful. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Amiatinus
I corrected the date of Amiatinus in the Vulgate mss list to 716. We know where this manuscript came from, Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, that it was carried to the continent to Rome by Ceolfrith when he left Monkwearmouth in 716, he died enroute. The manuscript was apparently taken to Rome. We know when Ceolfrith left Monkwearmouth and went to Rome taking one of the pandects being produced there with him from Bede: 716. So the manuscript could not have been created any later than that.

Thank you to whomever created this article though.....well done and very useful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forkbeard (talk • contribs) 07:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of New Testament Latin manuscripts. 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/20080113075306/http://www.unigre.it/pubblicazioni/lasala/WEB/ to http://www.unigre.it/pubblicazioni/lasala/WEB/

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) 15:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Purpose
, I saw you've been busy with this article, and also thanked me today twice (you're welcome!) for setting up a list of Vetus Latina Old Testament manuscripts in Vetus Latina. I decided it would be better to split that list off as Vetus Latina manuscripts, following Vulgate manuscripts and Septuagint manuscripts. German Wikipedia already had de:Liste der Handschriften der Vetus Latina, which although currently limited to the New Testament could theoretically also be expanded to include Old Testament manuscripts, which this 'List of New Testament Latin manuscripts' would not allow. I've also decided to move the Vulgate section to Vulgate manuscripts and made it an excerpt, because Vulgate manuscripts was identified as the 'Main article', but contained less information than the list here. That didn't really make sense.

The problem now is that I'm not sure whether this article has any legitimate purpose anymore. Most contents are still the work of banned User:Alastair Haines from 2008, so we can't consult him anymore. That's why I'm asking you, because you've done some recent improvements. There are few inline cites, it reads like a manual, which violates WP:NOTGUIDE. We'd have to do a lot of editing to bring this article up to present standards if we would want to keep it. Writing about how to differentiate between Vetus Latina and Vulgate mss seems useful, but otherwise this article has an unclear scope. It overlaps a lot with Vulgate manuscripts and Vetus Latina manuscripts, but unlike them doesn't cover the Old Testament, which has the same Latin identification problem. Some Latin mss have OT and NT bits. Why should we separate them by Testament and language? Isn't it more useful to separate them by Vetus Latina versus Vulgate (which scholars mostly already do) instead of throwing all "Latin mss" together under the heading of "New Testament"? I suppose that all identification and classification issues can be discussed in Bible translations into Latin, couldn't they? That way we will have no need for this list anymore. Curious to know your thoughts. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * here are my thoughts. Feel free to ask me more if you feel I have not answered all your questions.
 * The article could have a purpose at the time (2008), since Vulgate manuscripts was only created in 2020 (by me) and Vetus Latina manuscripts was only created today (by you, thanks for doing that). At the time, I had already copy-pasted content from this article, as the template on the talk page (and also on this very talk page) states. Also, since 2011 Bible translations into Latin exists.
 * This article does overlap with the three aforementioned articles, which is a problem in terms of maintainability. I would have no problem in having an article to classify Bible manuscripts by languages and the part of the Bible they are from, but it would be too time-consuming to maintain (not to mention that WP already lacks users to maintain such articles).
 * ---> Therefore, I think the article could be deleted.
 * However, I also thought about the following:
 * Is there Latin manuscripts of the Bible or of the NT whose text is neither from the Vulgate nor from the Vetus Latina? All I can think about would be handwritten drafts or original manuscripts of Latin translations made by Erasmus, Isidoro Chiari, or Sebastian Castellio. Maybe if such manuscripts exist, their place is in a separate WP article (although I have no idea for a title for such an article).
 * What does, who knows a lot about Bible manuscripts, think of all this?
 * Veverve (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for sharing your thoughts, and also the fact that you created the Vulgate manuscripts article (I didn't know that).
 * Well, my suggestion was moving all that stuff about classifying Latin Bible manuscripts (i.e. the lead section of List of New Testament Latin manuscripts, List of New Testament Latin manuscripts and Vulgate manuscripts) to Bible translations into Latin. That seems the logical and appropriate place for comparing all Latin versions of the Bible. So if we can agree on that, all useful contents of this article could be moved elsewhere to places where they fit better. i think you're right; this article may have just served its purpose from 2008 until we found a better way of presenting information, and we seem to be at that point now.
 * It's an interesting question. I don't think there would be many handwritten Latin versions other than Vulgate or Vetus Latina, especially because the latter is more or less defined as a catch-all term for any Latin mss between the year 1 and the invention of the printing press that does not align with the Vulgate. In other words, all non-Vulgate Latin manuscripts are considered Vetus Latina by definition. Other than the handwritten drafts for 16th-century Latin printed versions that were influenced by the (upcoming) Textus Receptus, and some hypothetical Bible translations into Latin, there aren't any non-Vulgate non-Vetus Latina manuscripts I can think of. But if we were to find them, I think Bible translations into Latin would be the appropriate place to list them.
 * Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you can start the AfD of this article if you want. Veverve (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * perhaps a better solution would be to simply make this page a redirect to Lists of New Testament manuscripts? That way we're not making List of New Testament Latin manuscripts a red link that leads nowhere and will have to be corrected everywhere manually or by some bot, but will get readers to what they're probably looking for. I've just improved Lists of New Testament manuscripts by splitting up the 'Latin' section between links to the New Testament sections of Vetus Latina manuscripts and Vulgate manuscripts; readers can then choose which Latin-type manuscripts they were looking for, or are interested in. As I said above, any remaining relevant content not already covered in Vetus Latina manuscripts or Vulgate manuscripts can be transferred to Bible translations into Latin, and otherwise deleted before we turn the article into a redirect. Do you agree? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Veverve (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for helping me to make decisions and carry out this plan. Hope you're happy with the results. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)