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

Re: [textualcriticism] Boernerianus

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.