Talk:Codex Alexandrinus

Weasely sentence?

while the corresponding portion of John is a lacuna, scholars posit that the Pericope Adulteræ was not included in the text based on space calculations.

This information is listed in the introduction to textual criticism texts by Metzger and Aland. If it had a citation, would it be less weasely? What exactly is wrong with it, and how could it be changed to improve it? I think deleting this information was uncalled for.--Andrew c 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Look here:

• Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts. Codex Alexandrinus

Please enumerate lines and verses of the text, and you wil have an assurance, this text was omitted by scribe. Two pages it is to little to hide 12 omitted verses. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Septuagint: say again?

Hello, I can't tell if the article is contradicting itself or if I am merely misreading it. The article says:

Three volumes contain the Septuagint, Greek version of the Old Testament, with the complete loss of only ten leaves. The fourth volume contains the New Testament with 31 leaves lost. The codex contains a complete copy of the LXX, including the deuterocanonical books 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151 and the 14 Odes.

So does that mean that a person can reconstruct the Septuagint by looking at a different volume of the Codex when a lacuna is found? If so, I think this paragraph should be reworded to make it more clear. Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mark 16

How does the Alexandrius handle the text of Mark 16:9-20? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.30.15 (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See here: Mark 15:37-16:16 and Mark 16:17-20. Codex Alexandrinus represents the Byzantine tradition in the Gospels, problem with ending have only the Alexandrian manuscripts. Here is no place for detail explanations, see Mark 16. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency on date?

The opening paragraph identifies Codex Alexandrinus as "5th century," but later in the discussion of date, we are given a number of reasons to date the manuscript to the fourth century and are told that it cannot be later than the beginning of the fifth century. Clearly there's some controversy here, I would like to know more about why the manuscript is dated as 5th century in most of the sources I look at.

Marti Steussy (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Marti Steussy

Digitised version made available

The BL's digitised copy of the fourth volume (ie, the New Testament element) has been posted in full to the Digitised Manuscripts site - see here. Any objections to my replacing/supplementing the CSTM link with this? Andrew Gray (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

...and since added :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Article review

This blog post makes for a useful critical review of the article: link, archive version. --Fæ (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Joshua 11:42

"In Joshua 11:42 it reads ελαβεν (took) for επαταξεν (struck)". Joshua chapter 11 has only 23 verses. Anyone know what this should be? NIV has the word "took" in verses 12, 16, 19 and 23, but none of those would make sense with "struck". Could it be another chapter? Tompw (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no "42" verse as you said. This is the Septuagint verse "23"...And Joshua took all the land. Most likely an edit mistake— JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Codex Alexandrinus. 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/20101212045241/http://biblefacts.org/church/pdf/Codex%20Alexandrinus.pdf to http://www.biblefacts.org/church/pdf/Codex%20Alexandrinus.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718225708/http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/ManuscriptViewPage.aspx?id=203 to http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/ManuscriptViewPage.aspx?id=203

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Quote 14 outdated comparison?

I suggest the following line "In the past the codex had been judged to have been carelessly written, with many errors of transcription, but not so many as in Codex Sinaiticus, and no more than Codex Vaticanus.[14]: 104  " is outdated as the scholar referred to was writing latest in 1894ish and refers to "not so many(errors)as in codex sinaiticus" yet surely at that point in time he would not have had access to all the leaves in existence in order to make a fair comparison between them? Seems a poor quote to conclude the discussion with ?

Andrew Frith Andrew5557 (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Well quite a few of the quotes on the page are from 19th century discussions of the codex (including on the Sinaiticus page), so my question would be: is there a newer source which has compared the text of both codices, and made a statement contrary to the one being discussed? If not, then it's a statement with a reference, which means it can be mentioned on this codex page. For the record: I do agree it is outdated; but I know of no other newer source which counteracts said comparison between Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus. Stephen Walch (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thought I'd check Parker's An introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts (link) to see if I could find much in the most recent (as far as I'm aware) intro to NT manuscripts, and it's quite telling that even he has but one small paragraph on Codex Alexandrinus (total of 4 lines), and actually states "[t]he bibliography on this manuscript is surprisingly sparse. It deserves a new full-scale study" (p. 72). This is why a 19th century book is still, technically, the most up-to-date description of Codex Alexandrinus and its error-comparison with Sinaiticus. Stephen Walch (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Currently reading W. Andrew Smith's Dissertation on Codex Alexandrinus (it was also published in NTTS 48: A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Hands), so will see if he has any updated comments on the comparison between the two. Will supply several updates to the article once finished reading. Stephen Walch (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"In the Old Testament its text often agrees with Codex Sinaiticus."

My interest is the quote right above that does not have a source given.

I believe it is 100% correct, but finding a source is difficult. Not just for the OT, but also the Apocrypha, excluding Judith and Tobit.

Any help appreciated!