Talk:Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) 18:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have volunteered to review this article for GA. If you're willing to wait a couple more days, I will complete my review within the next day or two. Thanks in advance for your patience. While you're waiting, however, perhaps you'd like to help reduce the backlog? María (habla conmigo) 18:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I admit this is not my area of expertise, I see some issues throughout the article -- mainly dealing with the prose -- which will be detailed in full below. Here is how it stands against the criteria:

Well-written: See issues below.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes.
Broad in its coverage: Maybe, see questions below.
Neutral: Yes.
Stable: Yes.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Lead

The manuscript is lacunose. -- What does this mean?
Originally the whole Bible seems to have been contained in it. I'm not sure this sentence works, since its structure makes it seem like a fragment. Perhaps expand upon this thought and flesh it out more; is it connected to the previous short sentence re: lacunose?
It receives its name, as a codex in which the treatises of Ephraem the Syrian, in Greek translations, were written over ("rescriptus") a former text that had been washed off its vellum pages, thus forming a palimpsest. -- This makes little sense, and again it has to do with the sentence structure. The way I understand it, the manuscript was originally another text/codex, but then the Greek translations of the treatises of Ephraem the Syrian were written over ("rescriptus") the washed-off vellum, creating a palimpsest? And this is where the manuscript receives its name? If so, I would reword it so this information is disseminated in two sentences, so it's not so confusing.
Tischendorf in 1840-1843 -- Who is Tischendorf? Link? The lead is overall very confusing, especially to the average reader who won't know what many of these complicated words/terms are without proper context. Because the lead section stands alone per WP:LEAD, make sure to summarize the article as a whole: many people only read the lead section, make sure it has a good showing.

Description

Is it Codex or codex? Consistency throughout.
The letters are medium-sized uncials. -- link Uncial script maybe?
The nomina sacra are abbreviated in rather unusual way -- Be careful not to editorialize. What makes the nomina sacra "unusual"? Compared to what?
by counting the lines we can prove that it was not in the book -- No "we", it's bad form. Scholars/experts have proven?
by counting the lines we can prove that it was in the work. -- See above.
The manuscript probably was written in Egypt before the middle of the fifth century. -- Why is this information listed here, when it's present in the "History" section further below?
It was written by at least two scribes, according to Tischendorf three scribes (A, B, C) -- There's Tischendorf again: who?

History

Probably it was housed in the Caesarea library. -- "It was probably..." also, just so it's clear, maybe add (from its article): "Caesarea library, the library of the Christians of Caesarea Maritima in Palestine in ancient times." This will save the reader clicking over to the library's article.
Two correctors have been very busily at work on codex. -- Again, watch the editorializing: very busily. "It is thought that two correctors previously worked on the codex"?
In the 6th century the first corrector worked on the codex (probably in Palestine). The second corrector worked in the 9th century in Constantinople. These points (time frame and place) should probably be added to the first mention of these correctors, just so context is given upfront. Combine the sentences. "...worked on the codex, one in the 6th century (probably in Palestine), and the other in the 9th century in Constantinople."
Is it codex or Codex? Consistency throughout.
It belonged to Cardinal Niccolo Ridolpho – in codex Rodulphus – († 1550). -- Who and what?
The older writing was first noticed by Pierre Allix. -- Who? How did he get his hands on it? Context, context, context.
According to Bentley's Correspondence, it took two hours to read one page. Bentley paid Wettstein £50. This collation was used by Wettstein in his own Greek New Testament of 1751–1752. Wettstein made also the first description of the codex. -- Similar to what I've mentioned before, short sentences are unnecessary here. Combine where necessary, and watch the split infinitives: "also made", not "made also".
Various editors made occasional extracts from the manuscript but Tischendorf was the first who read it completely (Old and New Testament) -- Aha! Now I know who Tischendorf is, and there's the first linking of his name. This needed to happen ages ago in the article.
Tischendorf worked by eye alone, and naturally his deciphering of the palimpsest's text was less than perfect. -- Editorializing: "naturally"
According to Swete it was not a single manuscript. Can this be expanded? I'm not sure this is where the article should end -- what do other people say about this?

Bibliography

The formatting here is inconsistent, author names especially.

Questions

What sort of impact has this codex has on biblical scholarship? The lead states that it "forms one of the codices for textual criticism on which the Higher criticism is based," but I don't see where in the article this is expanded upon.
Can any more be said about its present location, such as where in the library it is kept?
Have any important biblical scholars noted its importance/legacy, used it in studies, etc.?

To sum up, the main issue with the article is the state of the prose. Most of what I've pointed to are the major issues, but it's problematic throughout, and highly inaccessible. I imagine that it's difficult to write such a scholarly article, especially when a very non-expert audience is intended, but I believe it can be dumbed down enough. Just don't be afraid to describe the who-what-how, etc. The more in-text context you provide, the less times the reader has to click over to another article to read an explanation.

Like I said, I'm not an expert. However, compared to Codex Sinaiticus and a few others I've glanced at, it seems rather incomplete. I don't know if more can be added, but if information in the way that I describe above can be added, then it would greatly benefit the article. Otherwise, I question if this article is truly "broad in its coverage". I'm going to place this article on hold until my comments have been addressed. Let me know if you have any questions! María (habla conmigo) 15:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to explain, why it is important manuscript (one of the four Great uncials, cited in every critical edition even with readings of correctors - only five manuscripts are cited in that way). I see only one problem - nomina sacra abbreviated in unusual way. It means abbreviations are different than in usual manuscripts. Standard of abbreviations we can see in the article nomina sacra - they are shorter (ΙΗΣ → ΙΣ). If I will explain this in the article it will unreferenced OR. Every reader who will compare abbreviations of this manuscript with this article will see difference. It is easy, but Tishcendorf, Gregory, Metzger, and other authors do not explain that. Thanks for your patience. Aha, I missed "Pierre Allix". Perhaps it is all. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just let me know when you're done tinkering. I see a few grammatical errors have been introduced, so if you don't mind it may be easier for me to just do a small c-e once you're ready for another review?

As for the nomina sacra, I completely understand; OR should most definitely not be introduced, but if you have a source saying that the "abbreviations are different" than in other notable manuscripts, that may be easier to understand than "unusual". To me, "unusual" denotes a judgement, whereas "differs from others" sounds factual. That is, of course, if you have a source to back it up. Furthermore, the abbreviations noted after the sentence (IHΣ IHY XPΣ ΧPY ΠΑP ΣTH) look like gibberish to me, which is why I asked for a little more context. If there is none to be found in the sources, then how to improve this sentence so the meaning becomes clear? María (yllo submarine) 15:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]