This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts
This article is related to the British Library. Please copy assessments of the article from the most relevant WikiProject template to this one as needed.British LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/British LibraryTemplate:WikiProject British LibraryBritish Library-related
Okay Stephen Walch I have read it through twice now, and while I love this article and think it is brilliant and you are too, I am not going to pass it without some specifically Wiki-necessary changes. I think you and I are alike in that we like to write in our areas of specialization. We know stuff. The trouble is, we think and write like the academics we reference because that's how people in the field of study we are in actually talk. But academics aren't our average reader. Wikipedia articles have to make the difficult accessible to ordinary high school and first and second year undergraduates - at the outside. Using any kind of jargon and expecting the reader to look it up for themselves if they want to understand you just turns readers away. That's counterproductive for you and for Wikipedia. This article makes assumptions about common knowledge that is not going to be common at all. You simply don't explain enough for the average non-expert to know what the heck you are talking about.
Your first sentence: Papyrus 45 (P. Chester Beatty I), designated by siglum 𝔓45 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), is an early Greek New Testament manuscript written on papyrus, and is one of the manuscripts comprising the Chester Beatty Papyri. assumes your readers know what the Chester Beatty Papyri are. Most people don't. It doesn't involve a ball or money changing hands and it's just true that the average person is more ignorant of religious topics than any other single subject - even geography. Don't assume people know what you know.
Second sentence: Manuscripts among the Chester Beatty Papyri have had several provenances associated with them, the most likely being the Faiyum. Don't use provenance, use simpler words such as 'the origins of', or 'proving where it came from', something that will communicate to someone who does not have a college level vocabulary. And you need to explain what a city in Egypt has to do with anything about this papyri - even if you have to add a paragraph.
It has been paleographically dated to the early 3rd century CE. in five words or less, substitute a definition for the term paleography: 'the study of writing styles and forms (paleography) dates the manuscript to...
Nowhere do I see a mention of the significance of the fact that this is the earliest surviving manuscript to contain all four gospels.
The papyrus was bound in a codex, which may have consisted of 220 pages, however only 30 survive (two of Matthew, six of Mark, seven of Luke, two of John, and thirteen of Acts) This assumes knowledge of a codex. It needs an explanation with some detail like this one {{tqq|the manuscript was made up of quires of two leaves (four pages) only, formed by folding a single sheet of papyrus in two, in such a way that the side of the papyrus on which the fibres are horizontal formed the two inside pages, while the other side, where the fibres are vertical, formed the outsides. The succession of fibres in the quire may thus be designated VHHV and this sequence is a vital factor in the reconstruction of the manuscript".[1]
All of the pages have lacunae, with very few lines complete just say gaps. You can put lacunae in parenthesis if you feel compelled.
The leaves of Matthew and John are the smallest explain what you mean - that they are the smallest fragments of the original pages which would have been 10 by 8.
...this manuscript possibly contained more than one grouping of New Testament texts Possibly? You said it did in the lead. This seems like a contradiction. If there is a minority view that says otherwise, then be sure to explain it as such. Otherwise, 'probably' shouldn't be inserted here with no other explanation.
This hypothesis is attributed to the use of gatherings of two leaves, a single-quire that few other codices had this is a sentence that no average reader will be able to make sense of. Further explanation required.
The manuscript was obtained by Alfred Chester Beatty in the first half of the 20th century, and published in The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible by Frederic G. Kenyon in 1933 move this sentence up to the very first mention of Chester Beatty. Tell where and how in a sentence or two.
In this work, Kenyon identified the text of the Gospel of Mark in 𝔓45 as Caesarean, following the definition of Burnett Hillman Streeter Further explanation required.
...because the manuscript predates the distinctive texts for each type from the 4th and 5th centuries. Further explanation required.
...has a great number of singular readings 'singular' is unclear to the average reader, I recommend 'unique', or 'distinctive', or 'evidence of a single scribes particular style' something that explains what you mean by singular. I like the quote and it helps but the intro to the quote still needs to better explain what the quote is asserting.
First I recommend explaining something of what text-types are. If a. reader goes to the trouble to look it up, they will find something like "a text type is a type of written text , such as descriptive , narrative , expository or argumentative" and that really won't help them figure out what you mean here.
𝔓45 has a relatively close statistical relationship with W in Mark, however, and to a lesser extent Family 13. Further explanation required.
There is simply way too much that only an academic in the field would understand in this section. Sophomores. Think sophomores.
The average reader does not know Greek. This is the English wikipedia, and while I appreciate these, all of them need an English explanation included.
I do like the article, and I do understand how difficult it is NOT to use the precise word and the correct academic term, but all that accomplishes is to make your work inaccessible by the people who actually use wikipedia. Assuming your readers have a familiarity with this topic is a false assumption. Approach everything like you are explaining quantum physics to grade schoolers. I want this article to pass, and to do so, it must meet wiki standards. Ping me when this is done. I'll check back periodically. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
^Skeat, T. C. “A Codicological Analysis of the Chester Beatty Papyrus Codex of Gospels and Acts (P45).” Hermathena, no. 155, 1993, pp. 27–43. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23041031. Accessed 3 Jun. 2022.
