Quantum redactiones paginae "Vicifons:Scriptorium" differant
Content deleted Content added
→Codex Amiatinus: my 2 cents |
|||
Linea 537:
: Yes, I am aware that the scan is an incomplete text, but the Codex Amiaticus is the oldest extant Latin copy of the complete Christian Bible. So even if we cannot put all of the Codex up now, we can transcribe the New Testament and it will be a valuable resource. Right now Latin Wikisource does not seem to have a single book from the [[Biblia Sacra|Vulgate Bible]]. The Codex Amiaticus scan is a clean and complete scan with good OCR and was thoroughly edited. It therefore makes a good choice for a first transcription. --[[Usor:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:EncycloPetey|disputatio]]) 01:14, 17 Maii 2020 (UTC)
:: {{ping|EncycloPetey}} I mean the edition itself, not the scan. Tischendorf did not publish an Old Testament, so if we base our edition of the Vulgate on the ''Codex Amiaticus'' it'll necessarily be incomplete for the next 75 years or so for copyright reasons unless we work from the manuscript itself (which would be quite a feat). Not a problem to transcribe it anyway obviously but just wanted to give a heads-up given the reasoning above (since it won't help with references to the Latin Old Testament). [[Usor:Nizolan|Nizolan]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Nizolan|disputatio]]) 11:46, 18 Maii 2020 (UTC)
::: {{Ping|Nizolan}} I see your point, but there is no rule against having multiple editions of a book, quite the opposite: i.e., we have several edition of Iuvenal's and Persius' [[saturae]]. We can always transcribe the ''Novum Testamentum (Codex Amiatinus)'' alongside the Vulgata Clementina and/or the Oxford edition of the Gospel and so on... besides, transcribing the whole Bible would ''also'' be quite a feat :), and one probably exceeding our "working
== Proposed restyling to [[Formula:Titulus]] ==
| |||