A fact from Papyrus Rylands 458 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 March 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
At present we have "The text of the manuscript agrees more with the Codex Cottonianus than with the Codex Vaticanus". How can a fragment of the Book of Deuteronomy (Papyrus Rylands 458) agree with Codex Cottonianus which only consists of a manuscript of the Book of Genesis? Greenshed (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, and very telling that for 9 years nobody took care of that. That was simply taken from [1] by someone who obviously misinterpreted (carelessly and thoughtlessly) the Θ there which refers to the Washington Manuscript I, that is WI according to Rahlfs. This edit remains unclear to me. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That: Albert Pietersma since 1984 has asserted that the evidence from this manuscript (MSS) has been overemphasized, "not because it is relevant to our discussion, but because it has been forcibly introduced into the discussion, in part, one surmises, because it is the oldest extant LXX MSS". does not make any sense. The quotation as such is correct, but the way the sentence is built has no logic. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
