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.

• 0232 John 1-9

but Gremanr edition has:

• 0232 2. Joh 1-9

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)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your thanks, Mr Jańczuk. I've been studying New Testament Papyri and Unicals, and noticed the error when I was trying to find more regarding the date ascribed to Unical 0232 (which I've seen dated as early as the 3rd Century CE (See Larry Hurtado: The Earliest Christian Artifacts (Manuscripts and Christian Origins) pp. 223))

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)!Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Plerique is a bit ambiguous: it doesn't have to mean "the majority", but it can. It is decidedly stronger than multi. L&S gives as its English equivalents: "very many, a very great part, the most, most". There is no ambiguity in die meisten, and unless we think that Gesenius changed his mind between 1828 ("die meisten") to a different meaning of plerique in 1833 and back again to ("die meisten") in 1834, we have to admit that his choice of "multi" in 1839 indicates a deliberate change in his judgment concerning the then existing views.

At any rate, it is his 1839 view that we are discussing. Not what he may have said or thought before, but his conclusive final statement. In that, he is very clearly dismissive of the "Jehovah" view. He says: "In eorum argumentis [...] nullum est, quod aliquam ne dicam vim ad persuadendum sed veritatis tamen speciem habeat, praeter hoc, quod prior tetragrammati pars, quae saepe in nominibus propriis comparet, יהו effertur [...] sed etiam hanc formam ex ea nominis יהוה pronunciatione, quae maiore sui iure genuina habetur, explicari posse, infra videbimus". He could scarcely have been more dismissive of the idea. He says it clearly in a single sentence almost at the end of page 576, the very end of his section I.

Whatever his opinion on whether the Tetragrammaton in the Biblical texts represented "Yaho" or (what he declares more probable) "Yahweh", there is no doubt whatever about his view about its supposed origin as "Jehovah", an idea which in 1839 he attributed to no scholar.

Please don't wait until next year to read what Gesenius said in 1839. I would much prefer that you, rather than I, put it in the two (?) Wikipedia pages concerned. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, those were the only two pages I had in mind. Surely you can report, paraphrasing Gesenius' declaration, what he said in 1839. Who could object? There is no need to quote an English translatioon of his Thesaurus (which, as you know, was completed by another after his death, when he had only got to the next-to-last letter of the alphabet. Nor do you have to go into details of his earlier publications, most of which were never published as such in English translation. You don't have to state that his ideas developed over the years. Of course they did. I imagine it was one or more of his students who pointed out to him that in 1828 he had wrongly made Relandus a supporter of the "Jehovah" interpretation. Over a century before Gesenius, Relandus had already shown that even then this was a minority interpretation, devoting to it only 131 pages compared with 432 for its opponents in his reproduction of ten authoritative works on the question, five on either side. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources, but in the absence of English-language sources does not outlaw sources in other languages, especially of better-known languages such as Latin. In many articles, Latin texts are quoted, often accompanied by an editor's English translation, which other editors can check. We are only reporting objectively what in 1839 G said. It isn't original research. If anyone does object, I'm sure an enquiry at a Wikipedia noticeboard will confirm its liceity. I'prefer not to seem to contradict you, but if you don't want to make the edit, I'll do it myself. Think about it until tomorrow. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are quite right. The Gesenius page has never been on my watchlist, and I no longer know precisely what brought me to read its discussion page. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to disappoint. According to my memory, which may be inexact, of Robinson's introduction, that seems to have been an earlier attempt to produce a Thesaurus, put aside to concentrate on the Latin version and the expanded fourth edition of the Handbook; the more substantive Thesaurus appeared even later. I don't feel like hunting further just now (if ever?) on that topic. I haven't recognized from what precise work he drew that he calls Gesenius's "personal view". It was your reluctance to accept non-English sources that made me choose to accept it as it stood. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for correcting my claim that Gesenius no longer cited any contemporary for Jehovah. I had looked for an explicit statement and overlooked the mention of the reason Michaelis gave in support of that interpretation, as Gesenius mentioned. I have added Meyer, whom Gesenius mentions in the same breath, and I have thought that there is no need to put in the article that Gesenius was right in what he attributes to them.

Is there an easy way to put in Wikipedia in pointed Hebrew what I have been constrained to write as "[Yehovah]"? Bealtainemí (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again. What you have added will probably be enough in itself for all my Hebrew purposes. I normally need only the two internal keyboards that I have put in my computer(s): US International and Greek Polytonic. Bealtainemí (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Tfd, where I proposed to merge Template:Lang-he-n into Template:Lang-he. Debresser (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Debresser:; thanks very much for notifying me of your proposed merging of these two templates. I fully support it; is there a way we actually "vote" for these things? Afraid I couldn't find (also didn't spend too much time searching!) an answer on that front :) Stephen Walch (talk)

Yes. You can press the link "Tfd" in my post, and express you support there. I'd appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Hi Stephen! I wanted to let you know I have passed the article. It is now a GA! YAY! I am putting this here because there were two flags on cite web citations that need fixing. I passed it anyway because I have confidence you will take care of those, and there was no reason to hold it up for that. You write well. I nearly always find punctuation errors, and you had almost none! (If someone comes along and criticizes the lead, just move that info on Beatty to the body and put a summarizing statement there instead.) It's truly an excellent article. I love it! Congratulations!Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Jenhawk777 - thanks very much for not only passing the article, but providing some well needed critical comments which I believe will have made it a much better read for the uninitiated, and which will hopefully be used by others on other New Testament manuscript pages as an example (not to mention your very kind words about my writing!). I went back to have a look for the cite web errors, but it wasn't showing me any? I did add an access date to one of them (as that was the only thing I could think of that would flag as an error), but couldn't think of anything else. Would you mind advising of the two cite web errors you had flag us, so I may fix them? Thanks once again! Stephen Walch (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I don't know what is going on, but the flags are gone. WP is so weird sometimes! Perhaps adding the date fixed it. And you are most welcome. It was genuinely my pleasure. I will keep an eye out for future articles by you in hopes of doing this again some day! This is the easiest and most pleasant nomination I have ever worked on. Congrats again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I almost forgot. Do you have this tool? Earwig's copyvio detector It needs to be run on everything you write - always. Take care! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Papyrus 45 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Papyrus 45 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jenhawk777 -- Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

The article Lectionary 184 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:Lectionary 184 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Lectionary 184 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lectionary 184 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

The article Minuscule 700 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:Minuscule 700 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Minuscule 700 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Minuscule 700 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Hello @Zackmann08 - thanks for this, afraid I wasn't fully aware of the manual of style when it came to adding images. I'll remember for the next time :) Stephen Walch (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I have completed my preliminary review with supplementary comments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before the bot gets here, I wanted to again extend my congratulations on a well-authored Good Article. Thank you for contributing so soundly and purposefully to the increase of such knowledge. I encourage you to consider nominating a fact from the article to the Did you know? team within the next seven days so that this article may appear on the front page of Wikipedia. If you require help or would prefer I nominate the article, please let me know! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pbritti: - thanks again for your kind words, and thorough review! I have put in a nomination for DYK as you've suggested. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Minuscule 1689 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Minuscule 1689 for comments about the article, and Talk:Minuscule 1689/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pbritti -- Pbritti (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Precious

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

The article Codex Cyprius 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 Cyprius and Talk:Codex Cyprius/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Codex Cyprius you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Codex Cyprius for comments about the article, and Talk:Codex Cyprius/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

The article Minuscule 1582 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:Minuscule 1582 and Talk:Minuscule 1582/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Frzzl -- Frzzl (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Minuscule 1582 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Minuscule 1582 for comments about the article, and Talk:Minuscule 1582/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Frzzl -- Frzzl (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Hello, Stephen Walch. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Minuscule 1582.
Message added 13:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Hi @Jtrevor99: yes will certainly have a look. Someone else was messing with the Qumran cave templates resulting in a redirect loop so I had tried to stop that happening. Had no idea it might be affecting other pages as well as the DSS manuscripts list! Will hopefully sort.it out ASAP. Stephen Walch (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

The article Family 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:Family 1 and Talk:Family 1/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Family 1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Family 1 for comments about the article, and Talk:Family 1/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]