Talk:Schøyen Collection

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Schøyen Collection article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Norway

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A newspaper article reported that The Martin Schoyen Collection is up for sale. Many hope that the Norwegian government will buy the collection. Mr. Schoyen's motive for selling the collection should mentioned.

I'm not sure anyone dates Codex 2650 (Schoyen Codex of Matthew) to the third century. The earliest date I've seen for it was 325, but when I pressed the Schoyen Collection website about it, a few months later they changed the date to the first half of the fourth century. While it is one of the earliest substantial manuscript witnesses to the Gospel of Matthew, it may not necessarily be older than Sinaiticus or Vaticanus; earlier claims then that it is the earliest substantial witness is yet to be established.

Any discussion of the Schoyen Collection should say something about Mr. Schoyen's successful offer to buy ancient Buddhist manuscripts which had to be smuggled out of Afghanistan in order to keep the Taliban from destroying them (this was about the time the Taliban was destroying the ancient giant Buddha statues). There is some claim--whether or not it is true I don't know--that Mr. Schoyen's generosity is such that he may return the manuscripts to Afghanistan if the situation is stabilised and if a responsible party can take care of them properly.

See more about Codex Schoyen here: [1]

Forlinianslip (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)James M. Leonard[reply]

Codex 2650[edit]

You are right in case of its date - 4th century. It is not earliest witnesses to the Gospel of Matthew, but earliest Coptic manuscript of this Gospel. Thanks for other informations, though we need sources. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Schøyen Collection. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301150456/http://www.schoyencollection.com/law.htm to http://www.schoyencollection.com/law.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 15:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]