Re: [textualcriticism] Codex San Gallensis Delta (032) is now on-line
- Kent Clarke wrote:
>Clicking on the link "Gesamtwerk als PDF herunterladen..." to download
> By the way, does anyone know if it is possible to download the images of Codex Boernerianus from the Dresden site; or can they only be viewed online?
the pdf. From there you can use the open source pdf tools (at least
under linux) to slit it into separate files and convert them to .tiff.
> I have the images of this codex that are posted on the CSNTM site, but I think they have been "doctored up" to some extent.It's photo lithograph made in 1909. According to the end of the Vorbericht "
"This is a photolithographic reproduction of the manuscript the text
of the Pauline Letters. The commentary of Matthew's Gospel and the
fragment of Marcus Monachus (see p. 7) are not included. The color
painting of the large letters are only reproduced in the first
quire. In addition, work was done to retouch the smearing caused by
the interaction of the colors on the photolithographic process."*
The differences you see are a combination of this retouching, removal of
the commentary material, and water damage (from World War II).
The Vorbericht also notes why the facsimile was produced:
"A printed addition could never replace the accuracy available from
a photographic reproduction. Generally, the most valuable manuscripts
should all be reproduced in this way as completely as possible,
against the possible tangible loss to these same manuscripts. Events
warn us that from time to time disaster strikes such as the fire in
the University Library in Turin in January 1904, where several
thousands very valuable manuscripts were destroyed."*
Boerneranius is the poster-child for why we continually need to make
facsimiles of our manuscripts. If it wasn't for the 1909 facsimile,
parts of the Boerneranius would be lost to us (or at least very
difficult to recover). On the other hand, there is still information in
the modern digital facsimile that wasn't in the 1909 as modern
techniques preserve more information of the original manuscripts. We
probably shouldn't wait 100 years between archives anymore;).
*English translations were done with the aid of Google, Yahoo, and Free
Translation. Strong German speakers feel free to correct them.
> Keep this kind of information coming people! Thank you again Bob!
- One can download a PDF of the Boernerianus from the Dresden site: there is an option at the right side of the page: "Gesamtwerk als PDF herunterladen" / Download this work". Admittedly the image quality of the PDF is not as good as the ones Wieland pointed out.
Note that there was no "doctoring up". The CSNTM site contains images of the 1909 facsimile edition (see also the Dresden information). The Boernerianus was serverly damaged during WW II; therefore the facsimile is in a way better than the original. It would be a nice idea for Dresden to digitize the facsimile alongside the damaged original.
Greetings, Jan Krans
VU University, Amsterdam
Radboud University, Nijmegen
Kent Clarke schreef:
By the way, does anyone know if it is possible to download the images of Codex Boernerianus from the Dresden site; or can they only be viewed online? I have the images of this codex that are posted on the CSNTM site, but I think they have been "doctored up" to some extent.
- Glad to finally see codex 037 (St. Gall's #48) on-line! The monastery
at St. Gall has set a fine example of how to post decent resolutions
of their manuscript holdings.
As Dr. Wallace affirmed, the images of 012 (on the CSNTM site),
have not been "doctored", (and Dr. Clark - thanks for your kind
correction). They are faithful unaltered scans of the
facsimile edition. They are the best visual resource for viewing this
manuscript. The original manuscript now lies in a very poor state. My
scanned images have had their brightness levels slightly
increased, as many of the present day monitors (flat panels) do
not illuminate as brightly as do the older CRT monitors. [see the
introductory essay at the 012 images location on the CSNTM site].
I have always been trying to encourage museums, monasteries and
photographers to always post ONLY high quality images. Even if
bandwidth is excessive. Dr. Wallace and I both believe that quality
is very important, and when the CSNTM began, I pressed him to try
to achieve high quality. He/they have done this beyond my
expectations! (Certainly the DVD copies are of excellent resolution).
Note that the best images at the St. Gall site are about 1 MB in size,
those which I scanned of the facsimile edition are usually 2.5 MB in
size. Images less than 800,000 bytes often omit too much data, or are
of poor quality. JPGs of 2.5 MB are usually of excellent quality!!
All humans can be grateful for the efforts of the CSNTM, providing
us with a permanent archive of valuable MSS accessible to all. (If
only the Greek Orthodox would be more cooperative in sharing images
of their MSS on-line.).
I also hope that most of you have read my essay "On the Nature of
Biblical Textual Criticism" [PDF]. It is found on the site:
www.Biblical-data.org - [s.v. TEXTUAL CRITICISM RESOURCES PAGE]
I would appreciate some feed-back. As concerns the St. Gallen
statements that 037 was written at Bobbio: how certain are they??
Rettig seems to favor St. Gall itself, as do I. Has anyone any
further information as to where 037 may have been written?
And for those interested: the site -- www.Biblical-data.org -- has in
2008 alone, over 40,000 visitors, nearly 250,000 hits. Over 20
gigabytes of data has been downloaded. The most popular pages (again
in 2008) are the Coptic Resources pages, and the HDR imaging pages. If
you have not visited the Latin Resources pages, then you are missing a
treat and a great digital (searchable too!!) copy of the Clementine
Vulgate!! Also a picture of the main hall inside the St. Gall library.
Coptologists from around the world have praised my Coptic pages. I
hope you enjoy them too.
Mr. Gary S. Dykes