Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [textualcriticism] Boernerianus

Expand Messages
  • Kent Clarke
    Hi Folks: I need to clarify my earlier statement regarding the images of the facsimile of Boernerianus posted on the CSNTM website. I stated that the images
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Folks:

      I need to clarify my earlier statement regarding the images of the facsimile of Boernerianus posted on the CSNTM website. I stated that the images were "doctored up", which misrepresents the actual situation. These images (of the facsimile and not the actual manuscript) were graciously provided by Mr. Gary Dykes, who I understand enhanced the basic color of the photographs. My phrase "doctored up", though honestly not its original intention, could imply something more negative than what was intended. As we all know, CSNTM has undertaken the noble task of providing images of exceptional quality for all interested in biblical manuscripts. My sincere apologies for the hasty choice of words that may have unintentionally reflected negatively on the outstanding work of CSNTM (or on Mr. Dykes' kind provision of these images). Again, my sincere apologies.

      Warm Regards;

      Kent
      ________________________________________
      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tommy Wasserman [tomwas@...]
      Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 1:39 PM
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Boernerianus

      David Trobisch who has worked a lot on Boernerianus, and who was consulted for the production of the digital edition has some information on his homepage. See here: http://www.bts.edu/trobisch/Presentations/Boernerianus.htm

      Click on the image to see a comparison of the facsimile with a digital image. As Bob point out the facsimile was retouched.

      Tommy Wasserman


      <-----Ursprungligt Meddelande----->
      From: Robert Relyea [bob@...]
      Sent: 4/12/2008 7:12:04 PM
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Codex San Gallensis Delta (032) is now on-line

      Kent Clarke wrote:
      >
      > 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?
      Clicking on the link "Gesamtwerk als PDF herunterladen..." to download
      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.

      bob

      > Keep this kind of information coming people! Thank you again Bob!
      >
      > Kent
      >
      >
    • Daniel B. Wallace
      Kent, thank you for the correction. I know you well enough to know that you meant nothing malicious by your words, but it is helpful to have this
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 5, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Kent, thank you for the correction. I know you well enough to know that you meant nothing malicious by your words, but it is helpful to have this clarification. I'm sure that Gary Dykes also appreciates the clarification.

        Daniel B. Wallace, PhD
        Executive Director
        Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
        www.csntm.org


        ----- Start Original Message -----
        Sent: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:48:22 -0800
        From: Kent Clarke <kentc@...>
        To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Boernerianus

        >
        > Hi Folks:

        I need to clarify my earlier statement regarding the images of the
        facsimile of Boernerianus posted on the CSNTM website. I stated that the
        images were "doctored up", which misrepresents the actual situation.
        These images (of the facsimile and not the actual manuscript) were
        graciously provided by Mr. Gary Dykes, who I understand enhanced the
        basic color of the photographs. My phrase "doctored up", though honestly
        not its original intention, could imply something more negative than what
        was intended. As we all know, CSNTM has undertaken the noble task of
        providing images of exceptional quality for all interested in biblical
        manuscripts. My sincere apologies for the hasty choice of words that may
        have unintentionally reflected negatively on the outstanding work of
        CSNTM (or on Mr. Dykes' kind provision of these images). Again, my
        sincere apologies.

        Warm Regards;

        Kent
        ________________________________________
        From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com]
        On Behalf Of Tommy Wasserman [tomwas@...]
        Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 1:39 PM
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Boernerianus

        David Trobisch who has worked a lot on Boernerianus, and who was
        consulted for the production of the digital edition has some information
        on his homepage. See here: http://www.bts.edu/trobisch/Presentations/Boernerianus.htm

        Click on the image to see a comparison of the facsimile with a digital
        image. As Bob point out the facsimile was retouched.

        Tommy Wasserman

        <-----Ursprungligt Meddelande----->
        From: Robert Relyea [bob@...]
        Sent: 4/12/2008 7:12:04 PM
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Codex San Gallensis Delta (032) is now
        on-line

        Kent Clarke wrote:
        >
        > 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?
        Clicking on the link "Gesamtwerk als PDF herunterladen..." to download
        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.

        bob

        > Keep this kind of information coming people! Thank you again Bob!
        >
        > Kent
        >
        >




        ----- End Original Message -----
      • Daniel
        ... consulted for the production of the digital edition has some information on his homepage. See here:
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 5, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Tommy Wasserman"
          <tomwas@...> wrote:
          >> David Trobisch who has worked a lot on Boernerianus, and who was
          consulted for the production of the digital edition has some
          information on his homepage. See here:
          http://www.bts.edu/trobisch/Presentations/Boernerianus.htm <<

          Following a link from his homepage yielded this site, with a very
          easily navigatable set of online images of Fe 09, Codex Boreelianus:
          http://digbijzcoll.library.uu.nl/lees_gfx.php?lang=nl&W=On&BoekID=1553

          I'm intrigued by the introductory pages of Boernerianus, but haven't
          been able to find a description of what they contain. The script and
          style is so different from the text of the Paulines that it doesn't
          appear to have been in the same hand. It also raises a question: when
          did scribes first start leaving spaces between words? It appears to
          have begun in Latin and spread to Greek via diglots. Was this part of
          the Carolingian Renaissance, of which most monasteries in Western
          Europe would have been a part?

          Daniel Buck
        • Robert Relyea
          ... It s not. It s a later commentary (On 2nd Timothy). The back pages are also filled with a commentary (Matthew). According to Dr Reichardt, there appears to
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 10, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            > I'm intrigued by the introductory pages of Boernerianus, but haven't
            > been able to find a description of what they contain. The script and
            > style is so different from the text of the Paulines that it doesn't
            > appear to have been in the same hand.

            It's not. It's a later commentary (On 2nd Timothy). The back pages are
            also filled with a commentary (Matthew). According to Dr Reichardt,
            there appears to be an attempt to modify the end of the codex, possible
            to remove the letter to the Laodicians. (though my translation from
            german could be flawed).


            The "Vorbericht" to facsimile of the Boernerianus
            (http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA%20012/ images 012_005.jpg to
            012_024.jpg) has a lot of information in german. My attempt at an
            English translation is available here: (
            https://aries.relyeahome.org/mss/boernerianus ). The .odt is an open
            office format (open office is available for free down load from the open
            office website http://download.openoffice.org/2.3.1/index.html) is the
            original (since Microsoft products do not run on my OS). The .doc is a
            Microsoft Word doc written from open office. The .pdf is an adobe
            Acrobat file, also written from open office).

            bob
          • Larry Swain
            I m actually curious about the Matthew commentary at the back of the manuscript. Does anyone know if any work on it has been done? Larry Swain ... --
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 16, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm actually curious about the Matthew commentary at the back of the manuscript. Does anyone know if any work on it has been done?

              Larry Swain
              >
              >
              > > I'm intrigued by the introductory pages of Boernerianus, but haven't
              > > been able to find a description of what they contain. The script and
              > > style is so different from the text of the Paulines that it doesn't
              > > appear to have been in the same hand.
              >
              > It's not. It's a later commentary (On 2nd Timothy). The back pages
              > are also filled with a commentary (Matthew). According to Dr
              > Reichardt, there appears to be an attempt to modify the end of the
              > codex, possible to remove the letter to the Laodicians. (though my
              > translation from german could be flawed).
              >
              >
              > The "Vorbericht" to facsimile of the Boernerianus
              > (http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA%20012/ images 012_005.jpg to
              > 012_024.jpg) has a lot of information in german. My attempt at an
              > English translation is available here: (
              > https://aries.relyeahome.org/mss/boernerianus ). The .odt is an
              > open office format (open office is available for free down load
              > from the open office website
              > http://download.openoffice.org/2.3.1/index.html) is the original
              > (since Microsoft products do not run on my OS). The .doc is a
              > Microsoft Word doc written from open office. The .pdf is an adobe
              > Acrobat file, also written from open office).
              >
              > bob
              > << smime.p7s >>

              >


              --
              _______________________________________________
              Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
              Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

              Powered by Outblaze
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.