Talk:Codex Campianus

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

Nominator: Stephen Walch (talk · contribs) 18:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Michael Aurel (talk · contribs) 03:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting article; I'd be happy to review this. I'll have a read over the article and hopefully give my review in the next day or two. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Lead:

• The lead looks good for the most part, though I think it could perhaps be expanded a little. There are no hard rules, though MOS:LEADLENGTH gives a rough idea of what sort of length might be best.

• I've updated with a bit more information. Not sure if it makes it too much better tbh.Stephen Walch (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  We're at about 150 words now, which I think is fine for GA status for an article of this size (it puts us solidly above the 100 mark which that part of MOS suggests to stay above). What's most important is that the lead hits on the major parts of the article, and it does this just fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Description:

• The manuscript is a codex (precursor to the modern book), containing a complete text of the four Gospels, – I think "precursor" should be preceded by an article ("the" or "a")

• Done.

• a complete text of the four Gospels, on 257 parchment leaves (sized 22 cm by 16.3 cm), with the text written in two columns per page, 24 lines per column in brown ink. – I think there should be a comma between "column" and "in", because "... in brown ink" follows from "with the text written". If you wanted, you could split the sentence with a semicolon, as it contains quite a bit of information

• Updated.

• The breathing marks (utilised to designate vowel emphasis) and accents (used to indicate voiced pitch changes) have been added in red ink, as has also been some musical notation. – removing "also been" might help this flow a little more

• Changed the wording.

• Quotations from the Old Testament are indicated, with miniature pictures of the four Evangelists before each Gospel, with Mark, Luke, and John all sat down. – could link Four Evangelists and the three names

• Done.

• Ornamentations are included at the beginning of each gospel, – should "gospel" be capitalised?

• Done.

• Beginning (αρχη / arche) and ending (τελος / telos) marks used for the weekly lecton readings of the Church's calendar are also written. – Hmm, should "lecton" be "lection"? If so, you could also link it

• Done and done.

• The Arabic note is illegible except one word, "Jerusalem". – a bit of a nitpick, but perhaps add "for" between "except" and "one"?

• Agreed. Added.

Text:

• The textual critic Hermann Von Soden describes its text is a result of Pamphilus of Caesarea's recension. – should "Von" be in lowercase?

• It should. Updated.

• It has a similar text to the minuscules 27, 71, 692, and 1194, thus being a part of the manuscripts comprising Family 1424. – the meaning is clear, though "indicating it was one of the manuscripts in Family 1424" feels a little more natural to me

• Updated.

• Biblical scholars Kurt and Barbara Aland gave it the following textual profile of 21, 21/2, 82, 3s. – should have a colon and no "of", or "following" should be removed

• Removed "following".

History:

• Biblical scholar Caspar René Gregory gives the date as 1706, but Scrivener gives it as 1707; both evidently trying to decipher whether Kuster had it misprinted either with mixed up numbers, or the wrong century. – it doesn't quite work with a semicolon in the middle, as the latter part technically isn't a full sentence (just needs some slight rephrasing)

• Updated.

• Some non-biblical material of the codex, such as the Synaxarion and Menologion, was published by scholar Johann M. Scholz in the same publication as those from Codex Cyprius, – what year was it published? (or, if we don't know exactly, you could give a general range or period)

• I will need to find out (Scrivener isn't specific!).

• Okay after some digging (leading me from English, to Latin, to German, then back to English books) I have located where Scholz actually published this (why weren't 19th century authors more specific?!). I have updated the relevant section with the required info. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Good job hunting that down! You could squeeze in the year if you wanted (eg. "was published in 1830 by ...", "in his 1830 Novum Testamentum Graece", or similar). – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Good idea; year added :) Stephen Walch (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Dean Burgon has observed that its "Harmony of the Gospels" is of the same type as in Codex Basilensis. – another nitpick, but "Harmony of the Gospels" was italicised above

• Updated.

• According to 19th century scholars like Tregelles, "it contains many good readings" – the meaning is clear, though technically this implies that multiple scholars said this, when just Tregelles did; some very slight rephrasing would resolve this

• Reworded.

• In the 20th century the manuscript remains largely neglected by scholars and its text is classified as of "low value" (as per the V of Aland's categories). – I think past tense would feel a little more natural here (as it's used in the sentences before and after)

• Reworded.

• critical edition of the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament, UBS3, – should "Greek New Testament" be italicised?

• Done.

• in the German Bible Society's Novum Testamentum Graece – same as last, perhaps italics?

• Done.

• Tischendorf dated it to the last half of the 9th century as he argued it has similarities between liturgical notes of the codex and the Oxford manuscript of Plato dated to the year 895. – Perhaps "Tischendorf dated it to the second half of the 9th century, arguing that its liturgical notes share similarities with those found in the Oxford manuscript of Plato dated to the year 895."?

• Reworded.

• It is currently dated by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF) – I would probably link the full name rather than the abbreviation

• Done.

Other:

• The lead gives the manuscript's number as "021", while the infobox gives it as "071". Is the one in the infobox incorrect, possibly?

• It was indeed incorrect - updated.

This is the prose (except for the lead, as I'll first wait for any changes there); I'll hopefully do the images and citation checks later tonight or tomorrow morning. On the whole, it's a very well-written and accessible article (and you've made sure to explain technical terms throughout, which is always helpful). – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the prose comments above, Michael - I accept them all and will make appropriate adjustments momentarily. Thanks for the kind words :) Stephen Walch (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit #2: Have commented on your notes above. Let me know if there's anything else that needs updating. Stephen Walch (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, all of those changes look good to me (and I don't have any specific prose suggestions for the lead, everything there looks fine). I've got around to doing the last bits of the review; there are just some very minor points, and other than that everything here looks to be in good order. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Stephen Walch: Thanks for your prompt responses and collegiality throughout. Everything here looks good to me; it's a quality article which does a particularly good job of making a reasonably technical topic understandable. Happy to pass this now. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit slow with the last parts of the review. Here they are:

Very, very minor:

• and according to Biblical scholar Frederick H. A Scrivener, – missing "." after "A"

• Good catch. Updated.

• Whilst it contains the text of the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), – should "Pericope Adulterae" be italicised?

• Most other things like that are italicised, so that's been updated.

Images & captions:

• I think File:Codex Campianus (GA 021) f. 91 r.JPG and File:Codex Campianus 0027.jpg need for the licensing to specify that the author died over 100 years ago (the red text there).

• Updated.

• Folio 91 recto, beginning of Mark, in the right margin liturgical note added: κυριακή προ των φώτων, on Sunday before Epiphany
  • Could wikilink Gospel of Mark

• Updated.

• • Would suggest using single quotes or italics for "on Sunday before Epiphany" to mark it as translated text

• Updated.

• • Could also link "recto" to Recto and verso, if you wanted

• Updated.

• • Potentially placing a full stop behind "Mark" and changing what comes after that to "In the right margin a liturgical note is added:" could help with readability?

• Updated.

• Codex Campianus - Showing the Pericope Adulterae (John 8:9-11), with additional text at the end of 8:11
  • Would suggest removing "Codex Compianus - " at the beginning (and adjusting what comes after it accordingly)

• Updated.

• • Could link Jesus and the woman taken in adultery for "Pericope Adulterae". I think it should also be italicised

• Updated.

• • If you wanted, you could also link Gospel of John

• Updated.

• The beginning of Matthew
  • Could link Gospel of Matthew if you wanted

• Updated.

Citations checks:

• 4b & c: no problems
• 5c & d: no problems
• 5g: doesn't contain the same detail, but presumably this is just what "arche" and "telos" are by definition, so no issue here I don't think. I do notice Paine includes diacritics on the Greek terms; not sure what standard practice is for Biblical Greek, should those be included here?

• I have a note on the diacritics aka breathings and accents under the Description. :) Plus yes, for the arche/telos I've done a bit of "reverse translation" of the source (if you check the other pages I've edited/had promoted to GA, this is how I have them noted there, so I like to keep the consistency). Can always swap them round if required.

• 9a: no problems
• 11a: no problems
• 2e: no problems
• 16: No problem for the statement who gave it the siglum "M". For the first part of the sentence, it sounds as thought it might be saying that Wettstein was the first scholar to include in a list of New Testament manuscripts ("was added to the list of the New Testament manuscripts"), a statement which would need a later source. There's a good chance I'm just misreading the passage, though, in which case there are no issues with sourcing, though a rephrasing along the lines of "The Swiss theologian Johann J. Wettstein added the codex to his list of ..."

• I checked the sources and none of them state that Wettstein was the first to include it in any list of NT manuscripts, so have updated the sentence as per your notes above.
• I've also made a few other small updates (mainly adding Tregelles/Tischendorf refs for other places where both support the other scholars). Please let me know if you require any further updates from myself on the article. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Great, those changes all look good to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)