Talk:Chester Beatty Papyri

Theories of provenance

Hi Andrew, just noting that I like the clarity of your wording of the alternate theories in the lead-in. I'll be back soon with more copy editing and hopefully some additional sourced material. Cheers. Alastair Haines 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defining the scope of the article

As one can see here, there are many non-biblical papyri put under the label of "Chester Beatty papyri". This could cause some confusion. For instance, in reading about ancient Egypt I often see mentions of Papyrus Chester Beatty I, but they refer to a New Kingdom papyrus found at Deir el-Medina, not the fragmentary Gospel of Luke which is known by the same title. Editors of this article should decide how to organize coverage of the Chester Beatty Library, the Cheter Beatty papyri, and the biblical papyri. Treating the biblical papyri as synonymous with the whole collection doesn't work. A. Parrot (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chester Beatty Papyri/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated high importance, because there is no Bible without the manuscripts by which the text has been transmitted. The Chester Beatty Papyri are the earliest substantial witnesses to the New Testament text. They are unquestionably of top importance to textual criticism of the New Testament. I encourage any future reviewer to raise the importance rating. I have simply chosen the most conservative rating, this article is at least of high importance. Alastair Haines 01:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 01:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chester Beatty Papyri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]