Talk:Eusebian Canons

Bible High‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Greek language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Move?[edit]

What do people think of moving to Eusebian Canons? It is the more used term by contemporary scholars. (this is a good reason why, even though in the public domain, the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't always a good source for article text).-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the term I was familiar with, but I did a quick ghit search & the Ammonian sections came out on top. But if you are right, then yes. Johnbod 01:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A JSTOR search yields 9 hits for Ammonian, but 25 hits for Eusebian. Also, the most recent hit for Ammonian is from 1959, while Eusebian is mentioned multiple times in the 90s and 80s. Anyway, I like the images and expansion you added to the article, good work. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm for moving then. Johnbod 01:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the redirect from canon tables works then I'm fine. Seriously, I have read Eusebian much more Ammonian. However, my approach has always been from the art historical side. On those lines, I would bet that most of the incoming links will be from individual manuscripts. As a guy who writes a lot of those articles, I can tell you that I use the phrase "Eusebian canon tables" a lot. Dsmdgold 22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They will be unaffected - I also categorised the redirect in the IM category. Andrew, I think we have a working majority, let's do it. Johnbod 12:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, the move is complete.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quidam?[edit]

Ammonius quidam in Latin means "a certain Ammonius". Surely this is not a Latin name for the ammonian sections? Does anyone have a reference for this? In my Vulgate these are called canones Evangeliorum, "the canons of the Gospels". Rwflammang 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. Is it a quote from the letter of Eusebius? Anyway I will remove the reference. Johnbod 23:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Eusebian tables[edit]

1. The text states that canon 5 is Matt. & Luke; and canon 6 is Matt. & Mark — but the matrix shows 5 to be Matt. & Mark and 6 to be Matt. & Luke ... i.e. they've been juxtaposed! Moreover, canon 9 (according to the text) is "Luke, John" - but according to the matrix it's "Mark, John". Which is correct: the text or the matrix?

2. The order of the gospels is always Matt., Mark, Luke, John ... so it's odd that canon 8 is "Luke, Mark", not "Mark, Luke"!

Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]