Talk:Textual criticism

Image as Decoration
I don't understand what the first image is doing in this article, given that the Carmina Cantabrigensia are not mentioned in the article, and their relevance to textual criticism is not explained. In other words, the image seems to be decorative rather than informative. I don't want to take it upon myself to go ahead and remove it, but I do wonder if there is a discussion to be had. 2600:4040:A2DB:800:B006:747F:722:3E5C (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

text-type
The word or phrase 'text-type' or 'text-types', when made into a link intended to be explanatory, comes to this page, in fact, it appears something like this: [ [ Textual criticism#New Testament | text type(s) ] ] (spaces added by me, or wikipedia will treat it as text type(s)). But there is no explanation here of text-types!

It's a very confusing term for someone with a printing/publishing background, as it has nothing to do with type (type faces) and not much to do with text; it's more to do with texts, plural, and it seems to be about copyings and meanings and lineages of copyings.

Would someone who knows what they're talking about please pen a couple of sentences, or even copy them in from elsewhere in wikipedia, to explain the term, and put it at the top of the NT section (for now, pending this page's improvement). Nick Barnett (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Huh? text-type, text type, text-types, text types and all redirect to Text types. Could you please phrase your question a different way? This stuff can be confusing for a new editor, don't worry.
 * (Also, the New Testament section on this page does explain what text-types are.) Remsense  诉  15:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)