Talk:Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Stephen Walch (talk · contribs) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 08:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Will take this one. —Kusma (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Content and prose review

• Lead seems short, but I'll comment on that in detail later. At first glance, I am missing the explanation that it is called "Basiliensis" because it is in Basel.

- Comment: added

• Content: Link codex.

- Comment: added

• I think gospel should be lowercase per MOS:CAPS but I could be wrong

- Comment: usually "Gospels" is used specifically for the four Gospels of the NT; "gospel" or "gospels" would be used to refer to non-Canonical ones.

• The Greek words κεφαλαια and τιτλοι probably ought to have accents

- Comment: On other pages where I've used these I've not included the Greek accents (mainly because they're likely to be unknown to the General reader, however most might recognise the Greek letters due to basic mathematical knowledge). Don't think they're necessary here.

I won't insist, but given that the Greek you use for the Biblical quotes is fully accented, omitting accents here just looks like misspelling the words.

• Would we expect reference to the Eusebian Canons? I do not understand what "and where they overlap" means here.

- Comment: Usually one does indeed find reference to the Eusebian Canons when the Ammonian sections are used (especially as believed Eusebius based his Canons on the Ammmonian sections). I also clarified what "where they overlap" means.

• You appear to enjoy using parentheses (perhaps excessively so). Some of them could perhaps be combined with the rest of the text for improved flow, perhaps just in a comma-separated subclause.

- Comment: I've removed some unnecessary ones; brackets are used mainly for extra explanatory information to technical jargon

• Minuscule should link to Greek minuscule instead of the current target.

- Comment: changed

• Can you say more about the mode of writing? (The "u"-like shape of the beta, the "H" shape of the lowercase eta and the abbreviations like "iota upsilon chi upsilon" for "Iesou Christou" make it a bit hard to read for the untrained eye; I can't decipher the text in the image without looking at a modern printing next to it). There also seem to be some Greek ligatures in use.

- Comment: is this in reference to the minuscule script of the MS? Don't really want to go into much detail on this (as it should be a separate article), as the minuscule script used is that seen in most minuscule manuscripts (with, obviously, some variations to distinguish years etc.). I've reworded this bit anyway so it is in fact relevant to the MS.

Yes, I was talking about the version of Greek minuscule used in the text itself. It is fine not to say much about it if it is "standard" Greek minuscule.

• Text: this is more about classification of handwritten gospels and variants. We learn what categories the text belongs to, but I am still a bit at a loss what these categories mean.

- Comment: I've linked to the wiki page for Aland's classification system for this reason: I believe a longer explanation is unwarranted in this instance, with the wiki page giving the required info.

• It might be easier to read if you started by a quick overview of classification schemes for biblical manuscripts and then describe what groups this one belongs to and what that means ("Biblical manuscripts are usually grouped by text type into Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine. The Codex Basiliensis belongs to the most common Byzentine type. The Byzantine manuscripts were further categorised by Hermann van Soden, who classified it as Kx, a group that had emerged in the 10th century").

- Comment: Think I've added info for this; again don't want to go into a long discussion of the text-types and what they mean, as it distracts from the rest of the article about this MS> :)

• Is there anything special about the two phrases excluded/included in this version?

- Comment: Yes as these are (somewhat) commonly known verses which aren't present in this manuscript (especially the one from Luke from the Beaititudes)

• It might be better to have "History" before "Text" to clarify the importance of the text for Erasmus

- Comment: I've re-arranged both the History and Text section to include more relevant information for each section, and tried to keep repeated info separate.

• History of the codex: "The early story of the manuscript and its provenance is unknown" hmm, the lead section says something about palaeographic dating; shouldn't this be detailed here?

- Comment: This has been included under the "description"

• Might be good to know for context that the University of Basel was founded in 1460 (a very old university).

- Comment: Added

Missing a citation though.

-Comment: Added

• Do we know more precisely when the monks bought the codex? Are we right to assume it was during the time when Rhenish florins were a widely used currency? (Although it sounds like it was not the local currency in Basel).

- Comment: Not specifically stated by any source, only that there's a 15th century note mentioning the price paid for it (again, no specific date given).

• "Since 1559 it was held in the University of Basel. Its later story is the same as that of Codex Basilensis and Codex Basilensis A. N. IV. 2." no citation given, and what is the later story?

- Comment: I've removed this. Don't think it has any relevance to what hasn't already been noted.

• Erasmus: now we are going back in time a bit. Erasmus was first in Basel in 1514? And then published something based on this codex in 1516?

- Comment: Yes and yes. The Greek NT portion was a rushed job for what was supposed to just be a publication of his new Latin translation and his annotations.

• "basis for the Gospels portion of the first edition of his Novum Testamentum" only the first edition? Did he use different editions later?

- Comment: Reworded. Further info added.

• "with press corrections by his hand, and "barbarously" scored with red chalk to suit his page format." so did Erasmus write on the codex, or on his Novum Testamentum?

- Comment: Reworded to note whose hand it was.

• Estienne's edition of the Greek New Testament: why not use its name, Editio Regia?

- Comment: Added; reworded

• No sources given for Estienne or his edition.

- Comment: Added one. Need to find ref for other statment (or just may remove depending).

• "2's readings became a basis for the Textus Receptus" the Codex has not been called "2" so far. Gloss the Textus Receptus to explain what it is.

- Comment: Will reword a few sections; added gloss

• "The manuscript was examined by biblical scholars ..." when was that and what did they do with it?

- Comment: info add

• "one of the inferior manuscripts used by Erasmus" in what sense?

- Comment: Metzger doesn't in fact state why; just that it is one of the "inferior manuscripts"

• "Wettstein gave it number 2 on his list, and this siglum has remained since" the why aren't you using it more prominently?

- Comment: rectified

• "Basel University Library (A.N. IV. 1)" what does "A.N. IV. 1" mean here?

- Comment: info added

• Lead: "Minuscule 2 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering of New Testament manuscripts), ε 1214 (in von Soden's numbering of New Testament manuscripts)" this information is not in the body.

- Comment: Does it necessarily need to be? Other GA reviews haven't asked for this so I haven't usually included everything from the initial summary in the main body.

It does not necessarily need to be. There are slightly different schools of thought on the relationship between body and lead, and I am in the "lead is a summary of the body" camp. No need to change this here.

• Is the text written on vellum or on parchment?

- Comment: corrected

• Infobox seems to be not certain whether the name is "Minuscule 2" (as at the top) or "Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1" (as in the "name")?

- Comment: Well the MS's name is Codex Basiliensis etc.; it's Gregory-Aland designation is 2; I'll add this info to the body.

• The script is not "[[Greek language|Greek]]"

- Comment: not sure what I should be changing this to, as the script is indeed Greek?

I would just go for "Greek minuscule" to indicate the script, not the language. (The Gutenberg Bible is written in Latin but in a blackletter script).

- Comment: updated

• What does "Hand a lot of errors" mean? It is not in the body.

- Comment: Included in the body now

• "Note Textus Receptus, full marginalia" also isn't clear. What does "full marginalia" mean?

- Comment: Good point (as marginalia usually means a lot of marginal notes, which this ms does not have). Removed.

An important manuscript with some history, so it is interesting to learn more about it. The article does need some work though. —Kusma (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Stephen Walch: the article does seem underprepared, but it is relatively short, so perhaps it is not too hard to fix the issues. Putting on hold. —Kusma (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Kusma: thanks very much for the review and the notes. I will admit this was my weakest GA nomination to date (mainly due to it not being really written by myself), so am not surprised at the improvements required. I've added some further info which I think fills it out a bit. I shall go through the rest of your suggestions when I have time. If you could do a sort of pre-review of the added material before I continue, it would be very much appreciated. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Stephen Walch: I think your additions are looking good: they add useful information and help round out the article, especially in terms of how the manuscript has lots of errors (and I learned the word "itacism" today). Please do reply to my individual comments when you address them (or choose not to act on them; I am fully aware that this is not really my area of expertise so I can be wrong). —Kusma (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Kusma: I have updated the article as per your comments. Please review and advise if I need to sort out anything else. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Stephen Walch: good changes, some further queries above. I am not sure that all of my sourcing concerns in the section below have been fully addressed. —Kusma (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma I've updated this a bit more due to your comments here and below. Please review and let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done. :) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It generally looks much improved. One issue: In the lead, the barbarous red chalk isn't blamed on Erasmus personally, but the body (citing Scrivener) seems to do so. The Sharpe reference I mentioned below could be used as a modern source countering this claim. (NB I have only now noticed the bibliography at the University of Münster link -- a wonderful resource). Another issue is that while the "a lot of errors" from the infobox is indeed in the body, I don't understand why this is labeled as "Hand". Additionally I should probably look through the sourcing again, but it might be Monday before I manage to do so (busy at work, travelling over the weekend, and I promised too many people too many reviews). I am hopeful we can wrap this up next week. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Stephen Walch: do you have an opinion on the red chalk / Sharpe reference and do you think you need to do anything else? —Kusma (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma: I've been trying to find anyone else who seems to agree with Sharpe that the red crayon marks are from anyone but Erasmus' hand - the latest scholarly book mentioning this manuscript (Basil 1516: Erasmus' Edition of the New Testament) has two references to the red crayon/chalk and both (p. 97 & p.127) from different scholars indicate Erasmus as the one who added the chalk marks for the page. I'll add a comment about Sharpe's alternative suggestion, but that this doesn't appear to have been repeated by later scholars. Edit: I should also point out this isn't the opinion of J. T. Sharpe but that of Kenneth Clark; Sharpe is just the editor of Clark's separate articles into one volume, "The Gentile Bias" which I reference. Edit #2: Added. Let me know if that suffices. Don't think I need to add anything else :)Stephen Walch (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's enough. The differing opinions on who was barbarous are now presented neutrally as they should. —Kusma (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I will pass this now. —Kusma (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Source spotchecks

Looking at Special:Permanentlink/1225890440.

• 1a: ok (but requires some context)

- Comment: not entirely sure what you're meaning here.

• 2a: no information about paleography or 11th/12th century

- Comment: added extra source.

• 2b: "the text covering only 13.6 cm by 9.9 cm of each page." is not in that source

- Comment: updated.

• 3a: ok (you could use this to cite the 13.6 by 9.9)

- Comment: as above

• 3b: nothing about κεφαλαια, Ammonian Sections, Eusebian Canons, tables of contents, subscriptions as far as I can see

- Comment: it's in the shorthand bit at the start to each ms (as per abbreviations on pages 189-190): subscr[iptions]; κεφ[αλαια] t[ables]; κεφ[αλαια majora / chapter numbers in the margin]; τιτλ[οι]; Am[monian sections]

• 4: Internet Archive link is dead.

- Comment: this is now reference 7, with updated archive.org link

• 4a: on which page does it say our specific codex is Byzantine?

- Comment: changed source/reworded section a bit

• 5a: ok
• 4b (p. 144): the source says the corrector was Erasmus, which seems weird to leave out

- Comment: added

• 6: Internet Archive link is dead, but 6a is likely accurate (only had access to a different edition).

- Comment: don't think this is reference 6 anymore.

• 7: could verify μὴ προσποιούμενος being removed from an online edition, but not the lengthy list of other texts. Again, according to Gregory 1900, the corrector was Erasmus

- Comment: as above

• 8a: "barbarously scored with red chalk" is a quote and should be attributed (and according to Sharpe, which I cite below, the red chalk was the printer's). No information about where Rhenish florins were used in the source.

- Comment: added with extra sources.

• 9: source says the book was "the property of the Dominican Library in Basel".

- Comment: updated with new source.

• 4c: despite its low quality, this seems to be the manuscript that has Erasmus's hand corrections and was given directly to the printers to typeset.

- Comment: not sure which source this is for now, but I've reworked this section and given new sources.

• 1b: no information on Wettstein, and a 1908 book is a poor source for a statement "this siglum has remained since".

- Comment: updated.

Overall, citations are imprecise, many of the sources are quite old, and few of them give a lot of detail on Codex 2 / Minuscule 2. (The title "Codex Basiliensis" is not used anywhere as far as I can tell). There are slightly newer and much more detailed treatments, for example John Lawrence Sharpe's "Observations on the Erasmian Notes in Codex 2" [1] (WP:TWL link; DOI is https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004266650_013 ).

- Comment: believe I have updated with more relevant and precise sources for comments. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Stephen Walch, sorry, I did not see your sourcing comments until now. I should be able to do another read through and comment on all of your changes over the weekend. —Kusma (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

General comments and GA criteria

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Prose is sometimes unclear, see above.
• MoS: lead section is too short (and contains parts that should be also in the body). Compare MOS:LEAD.
• Broadness: a bit short, but most things are covered
• Not everything is cited, and some citations not covered by sources, which are rather old (see above)
• Focus: ok except for the long list at John 8:6
• File:Minuscule 2 (GA) Matt 1.jpg does not have a source or a US tag

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by DimensionalFusion talk 17:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1, a manuscript of the New Testament, was marked with red chalk for it to be used as a page-template for the first published printed edition of the New Testament?

• Source: Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose; Edward Miller (1894). A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. Vol. 1 (4th ed.). London: George Bell & Sons. p. 191.

• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Stephen Walch (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Stephen Walch (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

• The hook as currently written may be too specialist for general readers; as in, it may be hard to understand for those unfamiliar with the relevant fields (in this case, Biblical studies). The hook fact itself might still have potential, it's just that the hook probably needs rephrasing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  How about:

that a manuscript of the New Testament called Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1, was used as a page-template for the first published printed edition of the New Testament by its editor, Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus?

Or:

that Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus used Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1 as a page template for his first published printed edition of the New Testament, marking it with red chalk?

Want to try and get a mention of the red-chalk marks in if possible :D Stephen Walch (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I still think the hook is rather specialist or too reliant on being familiar with Biblical studies. I'm not sure who else to ask for help with, so I'll see if I can ask for help over at WT:DYK regarding a hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I cannot grasp the importance of the red chalk from either the hook or the article. From the article, red chalk was used to mark changes, by one or more people. What makes this so unusual that it is worth mentioning in the hook? Did texts not often get changes, or is there something unusual about the material? CMD (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@User:Chipmunkdavis - Ancient manuscripts aren't usually written on or marked up by anyone these days: the idea that someone would mark or deface an artefact fills most modern people with dread; that a written manuscript of the NT was, to quote Scrivener, "barbarously scored with red chalk" is quite telling of this even from the 19th century. The MS and how it was used is also very important in the history of printed books, as this was the manuscript used for the first ever published printed Greek NT. Evidently I need to think of a how to word the hook to get this across. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Stephen Walch: Heads up, "New Testament" is a WP:COMMONTERM, so you could probably get away with starting ALT0 at "a manuscript of the New Testament". I'd also lose everything after "template" for interest purposes and replace "it to be used as a page-" with "use as a" for concision. This should simplify the hook somewhat and give you some room to put a quote in there.--Launchballer 11:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer:: thanks very much for the suggested improvements. How about then:

• ...that a manuscript of the New Testament was "barbarous scored with red chalk" when used as a page-template for the first published printed edition of the New Testament?
• Source: Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose; Edward Miller (1894). A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. Vol. 1 (4th ed.). London: George Bell & Sons. p. 191.

Think that works as a decent hook? :) Stephen Walch (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's better, but I think it's recursive to include "New Testament" twice and that the hook would be more interesting if it left off what it was being used for.--Launchballer 20:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

How about therefore:

• ...that a manuscript of the New Testament was "barbarously scored with red chalk" in the 15th century by a book publisher? (include source here etc.)

Any better @Launchballer:? Stephen Walch (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd leave out "in the 15th century" as it's interesting with or without the date, but I'll let a promoter make that decision. This hasn't had an actual review yet, so I'll give it one now; this is long enough, new enough. QPQ unnecessary and Earwig has no complaints. I see no reason why this might deserve a dispute tag. Just a couple of things; single-sentence paragraphs are discouraged by MOS:PARA (which is part of MOS:LAYOUT and should have been assessed as part of the GA review!) and I think these should be knocked together, and external links should not be used in the body of the article per WP:EL and I think these should be removed.--Launchballer 10:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

To answer the following, posted on my talk page:

"Hi @Launchballer: - thanks for your continued input on my DYK nomination; I've made some changes to the main article as per your recommendations, however I'm not understanding what "external links should not be used in the body of the article" is in reference to, as the only external links are either to the sources, or in the clearly marked external links section - unless this section is the problem? Happy to correct the article once I know what this is in reference to. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2024 (UTCxr)"

I am referring to the use of {{bibleref}}, which should not be used anywhere other than in References or its dedicated External links section.--Launchballer 21:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Had no idea bibleref was only for footnotes/external link sections. Thanks for the info! Stephen Walch (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me. (I've taken the liberty of knocking together the short paragraphs myself.)--Launchballer 10:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

With 15th century removed:

• U2b: ... that a manuscript of the New Testament was "barbarously scored with red chalk" by a book publisher?

DimensionalFusion (talk ▪ she/her) 09:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion: That hook is a WP:DYKTRIMmed version of an earlier hook that introduces no new information. You are able to promote it.--Launchballer 10:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I know it’s no new information, I’m just restating it to make it easier for the tool. Can’t promote because all the prep areas are full, so I’ll have to wait until some preps are promoted to queues DimensionalFusion (talk ▪ she/her) 10:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)