Thanks for your correction (Uncial 0232). Unfortunately this wrong data we can find in: K. Aland, B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Text Criticism, transl. E.F. Rhodes, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1995 (3th ed.), p. 126.
but Gremanr edition has:
Unfortunately in English translation (made by Erroll F. Rhodes) I found more than 20 errors and omissions. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 14:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a very good idea. Yes I want to do that, but it is work for years. If you want something to help, you are welcome. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 20:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just reviewed your creation of an article at Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 842. Thank you for contributing to the encyclopedia. While I was able to find enough coverage in a Google Scholar search to likely establish the subject's notability, the article desperately needs more citations to reliable sources, as the current level of sourcing is inadequate. Information without a proper citation may be removed by future editors. signed, Rosguill talk 01:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
In the second edition (1828) of his Handwörterbuch Gesenius said most commentators were for Yahwoh; others for Yahweh; Jehovah was defended by Reland, Simonis and Michaëlis.
In the 1833 Latin edition he still says the majority were for Yahwoh, mentions Relandus as a supporter not of Jehovah but of Yahweh, and gives only Michaelis as defending Jehovah.
In the "improved and enlarged" fourth edition (vol. 1, cols. 743–746) of his Handwörterbuch, he still says most were for Yahwoh, but says that Yahweh was more likely ("wahrscheinlicher"); he specifies the five who in Reland's book attacked Jehovah (and says Reland himself was of the same opinion) and those who in the book defended Jehovah', and he says Michaëlis held that the use of Jehovah predated the introduction of Masoretic pointing.
In his much fuller Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguae Hebraeae et Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti, the section (from Yod to Mem) containing the YHWH entry (pp. 575–580) appeared in 1839. He no longer says "most" contemporaries favoured Yahwoh, but only multi, no longer plerique or die meisten. And he says there are grammatical reasons against that theory (p. 577). He seems to make no mention of supporters in his own time of the Jehovah interpretation – or am I missing something? He does mention the defenders of Jehovah in an earliler century whose works were reproduced by Relandus, but he uses very strong language in dismissing their arguments (p. 576).
It does seem to me that, towards the end of his studies and his life, Gesenius did express a view: he firmly excluded the Jehovah interprtation, and said Yahwoh is less likely than Yahweh. Am I wrong? I'll be grateful for your guidance. Bealtainemí ( talk) 12:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)!
Please see Tfd, where I proposed to merge Template:Lang-he-n into Template:Lang-he. Debresser ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I responded to your reversions of my contributions on the Talk:Tetragrammaton page. Please read it and respond if you wish. ● Thane — 18:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Papyrus 45 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jenhawk777 --
Jenhawk777 (
talk)
17:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Lectionary 184 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Ealdgyth --
Ealdgyth (
talk)
00:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Minuscule 700 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Ealdgyth --
Ealdgyth (
talk)
01:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to
Minuscule 788. I noticed that you added an image to the article's
infobox as a
thumbnail. In future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox, as this is against the
Manual of Style. When adding an image, supply only the filename to the
|image=
parameter and the caption to the |caption=
parameter instead. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using; please consult the Template page for the infobox being used on that page for proper instructions and documentation. Thanks!
Zackmann (
Talk to me/
What I been doing)
20:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Stephen Walch. Thank you for your work on Minuscule 983. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating the article! Hopefully you will write more article, have a good day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
Minuscule 1689 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Pbritti --
Pbritti (
talk)
22:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
On 24 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Minuscule 1689, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Minuscule 1689, a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament, went missing for nearly 100 years after it was moved during World War I for safety reasons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Minuscule 1689. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Minuscule 1689), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
papyri pattern
Thank you for quality articles about early Greek New Testament manuscripts, such as Minuscule 1689, Papyrus 45, Codex Cyprius, Minuscule 700 and Lectionary 184, for a user page strictly on content, for "let me know if anything else needs adding/clarifying/rewording", - Stephen, you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2821 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
Codex Cyprius you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Ealdgyth --
Ealdgyth (
talk)
15:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
Minuscule 1582 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Frzzl --
Frzzl (
talk)
09:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
If you upload images to Commons, please give them categories - typically at least two. And per the MOS, avoid "is currently located/housed in", unless there is reason to believe it is likely to move. Just say "is now in". Johnbod ( talk) 03:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 13:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, could you take a look at Dead Sea Scrolls? We think (though are not sure) some of your recent changes broke rendering of the Qumran Cave 11 fragments list on that page. Please also see Talk on that page. Thanks! Jtrevor99 ( talk) 14:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
On 23 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Minuscule 1582, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Minuscule 1582, a Greek manuscript of the New Testament Gospels, has an ancient note before Mark 16:9–20 which casts doubt on the authenticity of these verses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Minuscule 1582. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Minuscule 1582), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Kusma ( talk) 00:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
Family 1 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Ealdgyth --
Ealdgyth (
talk)
16:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | |
One year! |
---|
Congratulations! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
On 14 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Family 1, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Family 1, a closely related group of Greek New Testament manuscripts, place the passage of the woman caught in adultery at the end of the Gospel of John as a separate story? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Family 1. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Family 1), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Kusma --
Kusma (
talk)
09:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The article
Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1 you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1 and
Talk:Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Kusma --
Kusma (
talk)
22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your correction (Uncial 0232). Unfortunately this wrong data we can find in: K. Aland, B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Text Criticism, transl. E.F. Rhodes, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1995 (3th ed.), p. 126.
but Gremanr edition has:
Unfortunately in English translation (made by Erroll F. Rhodes) I found more than 20 errors and omissions. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 14:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a very good idea. Yes I want to do that, but it is work for years. If you want something to help, you are welcome. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 20:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just reviewed your creation of an article at Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 842. Thank you for contributing to the encyclopedia. While I was able to find enough coverage in a Google Scholar search to likely establish the subject's notability, the article desperately needs more citations to reliable sources, as the current level of sourcing is inadequate. Information without a proper citation may be removed by future editors. signed, Rosguill talk 01:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
In the second edition (1828) of his Handwörterbuch Gesenius said most commentators were for Yahwoh; others for Yahweh; Jehovah was defended by Reland, Simonis and Michaëlis.
In the 1833 Latin edition he still says the majority were for Yahwoh, mentions Relandus as a supporter not of Jehovah but of Yahweh, and gives only Michaelis as defending Jehovah.
In the "improved and enlarged" fourth edition (vol. 1, cols. 743–746) of his Handwörterbuch, he still says most were for Yahwoh, but says that Yahweh was more likely ("wahrscheinlicher"); he specifies the five who in Reland's book attacked Jehovah (and says Reland himself was of the same opinion) and those who in the book defended Jehovah', and he says Michaëlis held that the use of Jehovah predated the introduction of Masoretic pointing.
In his much fuller Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguae Hebraeae et Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti, the section (from Yod to Mem) containing the YHWH entry (pp. 575–580) appeared in 1839. He no longer says "most" contemporaries favoured Yahwoh, but only multi, no longer plerique or die meisten. And he says there are grammatical reasons against that theory (p. 577). He seems to make no mention of supporters in his own time of the Jehovah interpretation – or am I missing something? He does mention the defenders of Jehovah in an earliler century whose works were reproduced by Relandus, but he uses very strong language in dismissing their arguments (p. 576).
It does seem to me that, towards the end of his studies and his life, Gesenius did express a view: he firmly excluded the Jehovah interprtation, and said Yahwoh is less likely than Yahweh. Am I wrong? I'll be grateful for your guidance. Bealtainemí ( talk) 12:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)!
Please see Tfd, where I proposed to merge Template:Lang-he-n into Template:Lang-he. Debresser ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I responded to your reversions of my contributions on the Talk:Tetragrammaton page. Please read it and respond if you wish. ● Thane — 18:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Papyrus 45 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jenhawk777 --
Jenhawk777 (
talk)
17:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Lectionary 184 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Ealdgyth --
Ealdgyth (
talk)
00:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Minuscule 700 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Ealdgyth --
Ealdgyth (
talk)
01:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to
Minuscule 788. I noticed that you added an image to the article's
infobox as a
thumbnail. In future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox, as this is against the
Manual of Style. When adding an image, supply only the filename to the
|image=
parameter and the caption to the |caption=
parameter instead. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using; please consult the Template page for the infobox being used on that page for proper instructions and documentation. Thanks!
Zackmann (
Talk to me/
What I been doing)
20:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Stephen Walch. Thank you for your work on Minuscule 983. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating the article! Hopefully you will write more article, have a good day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
Minuscule 1689 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Pbritti --
Pbritti (
talk)
22:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
On 24 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Minuscule 1689, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Minuscule 1689, a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament, went missing for nearly 100 years after it was moved during World War I for safety reasons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Minuscule 1689. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Minuscule 1689), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
papyri pattern
Thank you for quality articles about early Greek New Testament manuscripts, such as Minuscule 1689, Papyrus 45, Codex Cyprius, Minuscule 700 and Lectionary 184, for a user page strictly on content, for "let me know if anything else needs adding/clarifying/rewording", - Stephen, you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2821 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
Codex Cyprius you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Ealdgyth --
Ealdgyth (
talk)
15:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
Minuscule 1582 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Frzzl --
Frzzl (
talk)
09:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
If you upload images to Commons, please give them categories - typically at least two. And per the MOS, avoid "is currently located/housed in", unless there is reason to believe it is likely to move. Just say "is now in". Johnbod ( talk) 03:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 13:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, could you take a look at Dead Sea Scrolls? We think (though are not sure) some of your recent changes broke rendering of the Qumran Cave 11 fragments list on that page. Please also see Talk on that page. Thanks! Jtrevor99 ( talk) 14:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
On 23 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Minuscule 1582, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Minuscule 1582, a Greek manuscript of the New Testament Gospels, has an ancient note before Mark 16:9–20 which casts doubt on the authenticity of these verses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Minuscule 1582. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Minuscule 1582), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Kusma ( talk) 00:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
Family 1 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Ealdgyth --
Ealdgyth (
talk)
16:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | |
One year! |
---|
Congratulations! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
On 14 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Family 1, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Family 1, a closely related group of Greek New Testament manuscripts, place the passage of the woman caught in adultery at the end of the Gospel of John as a separate story? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Family 1. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Family 1), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Kusma --
Kusma (
talk)
09:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The article
Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1 you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1 and
Talk:Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Kusma --
Kusma (
talk)
22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)