Talk:Byzantine text-type

message: I have reverted an edit which added a value judgment as to the quality of the Textus Receptus.  Two reasons for this; a. they do not conform to Wikipedia conventions on Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View; b. they are to do with the Textus Receptus, rather than with the Byzantine Text/Majority Text.  10:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tom, let us create professional article about the Byzantine text-type. We have a lot of work to do, but why not? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textus Receptus  

message: This beautiful picture presents the end of the Book of Acts and the beginning of Letter of James. These two books represents alexandrian text-type, but article treats about byzantine text-type, it means this picture is located in wrong place. It will better to move it to article Alexandrian text-type, where is his place. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture from Codex Alexandrinus (folio 76r)

message: The last sentence of the first paragraph, makes little sense and is not grammatical.  I did not correct it because I, an outsider, have no idea what was intended. Stifynsemons (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammatical problems, first paragraph

message: :"The Peshitta doesn't conform to the Greek Byzantine text or the Alexandrian Text. (It is written in the Aramaic language and comes directly from the apostles.)" 
It is not true, especially "directly from the apostles". In External links Textus Receptus was ascribed as Majority text. Majority text it is Byzantine text, not Textus Receptus. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some corrections 

message: Thank you, all of you who contributed to this article! I'm only an armchair theologian, but I'm very grateful for the scholarship here that goes above and beyond the scope of your average Wikipedia article. Keep it up!  64.221.15.66 (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Encouragement

message: I think we need a clarification of what "translatable" really means. Aldo L (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose to a certain extent it can depend on the language into which the text is translated - hence differences between definite and intefinite articles are translatable from Greek to English, but not from Greek to Latin.  However, the general point I would have thought as being reasonably clear; if a variant is capable of being deonstrated through literal translation into a second language; then it is 'translatable'.  If a variant can only e exist within a koine Greek text, then it is non-translatable.  Of course, many translatable variants are trivial, or make no difference at all to the sense; but from a textual point of view, that it not relevant.  TomHennell (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Translatable" 

message: The recent additions of material favoring the Byzantine Text-Type to the lead suffers from a number of problems. It's not all sourced, the one source cited is a self-published internet source, it introduces material to the lead not found in the article itself, and it promotes a fringe point of view. On top of all that, there's the behavioral issue -- the anonymous IP-hopper is inserting the material repeatedly over the wishes of multiple editors. I've dropped an edit war warning on the user's talk page, so we'll see where things go from here. Alephb (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this Alephb; these edits are clearly Original Research; and as you say improper for the lede. I might also add that the claimed 'scientific analysis' findings establish nothing.  The claim made is that for variants where Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ, one or the other readings is found in the Majority text; and that this proves that the Majority text underlies both Alexandrian manuscripts.  But the overwhelming majority of variants are binary(e.g. a word included or omitted).  For such a variant, the Majority text will agree willy-nilly with one or another of the Alexandrian readings. TomHennell (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems the same user is still doing the exact same thing. I have this page on my watchlist so will always be removing the added material. Stephen Walch (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same vandal is back again it seems. Stephen Walch (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've had enough of this. I've requested the page to be protected. Stephen Walch (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Recent Additions of Problematic Material 

message: User @user:Veverve has kindly, and rightly, removed quite a lot of unsourced material from this article. Not all of it was incorrect per se, just unsourced. I'll be attempting to retrieve some sources for the statements, but if anyone else who is watching this page has the sources to hand, the removed material can be restored once the sources are cited. Stephen Walch (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Have restored one of the removed sections, reworded and with references. Looking at some of the other removed sections, not quite sure if they're worth restoring, and don't seem to add much more to the article. Stephen Walch (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Unsourced Material