Slashdot Mirror
Digitized Gutenberg Bible Available
Prince_Ali writes "A digital copy of the Gutenburg Bible, the first major Western book printed from movable type, has been made available by The University of Texas, available through the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center. The Ransom Center's copy of the Bible is claimed to be the finest in the world, and is now freely available to anyone who would like to examine it. More information can be found via this CNN.com article."
/.ing this site is blasphemous.
wow, who would of thought the ability to see this work of art is as rare today as when it was first printed.
it's a very breathtaking and wonderful object to view.
Mike
Of what I heard, Gutenberg made the movable type so he could make books cheaper. But he also made the "Publishers' Guild" and wreaked what he could have made known to the public.
He put back knowledge for 100 years by allowing of such a guild that muchg power.
The Library of Congress (Jefferson Building, IIRC) has a copy on display. (Yep, that's me). Closeup available here
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
I already read it, what else you got?
Even the average Latin student is not going to be able to read those digitized images or even the actual pages, given the typography.
Cross-referencing does not have to be done in the margins of a book. Do you know how many in-depth studies of texts are done in rare book rooms? Without drawing on the books?
If nothing else, making the GB more available will teach the average huckleberry that the bible wasn't written in english, lol.
No. Not Latin. It ("The source") would be Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
Don't forget the New American Standard translation, the other major English translation.
Be careful with the NIV, though. It's quite a good translation, but you have to be aware of what you're getting when you read it. The translators used the "dynamic equivalence" philosophy, to make it easier to read. That means they took the more difficult sentences and rephrased them, changing both grammar and vocabulary to a more straight-forward reading level. (Every translation involves interpretation, but dynamic equivalence adds a second layer of "putting it in your own words.")
Here's some good resources:
Unbound Biola -- Bible search. Most of the major English translations, along with 30 or 40 other languages, ancient and modern.
Read the Bible -- 50 or 60 translations, English and otherwise. Some are available for download, as are the necessary fonts.
Personally, I think it was a mistake to translate the gospels from Aramaic, too.
Realistically, this Bible is less useful for the study of modern theology than it is other things -- art, the history of print and bookbinding, the evolution of the scriptures, etc. I mean, look at the cover of the thing -- it's a stunning piece of work.
If you are truly serious about studying the Bible as a living book, and not as a museum piece, then pick up a New King James or NIV version.
IMO, the King James versions still suffer from their poisioned past. The NIV makes a good effort, but I disagree with some of the interpretations they make (although I do agree with the need to draw those interpretations).
The key to really understanding the Bible is to understand its sources and inspiration, examining the roots of the mythology being presented and the way in which things would have been intended. This isn't easy to do, but IMO is worthy of at least ameature study.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to make illegal copies of my words and destroy my IP rights. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.
Yours etc.
Supreme non existent being
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
I knew it, God is a blogger!!!
Wait, cowboyneal uses Movable Type. Hmmmmmm.
Actually, 48 out of a print run of approximately 200, to be exact.
Not a bad survival ratio, actually.
Further reproduction of any of the Gutenberg Bible images without the written consent of the Ransom Center is prohibited.
So much for a free press and research materials.. This is such a load of crap. The largest images publicly available are 835x600.
Inquiries regarding the availability of higher-resolution digital images for research or publication should be directed to the Center's staff.
All this from a public university. Your tax dollars at work!
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
There are only three copies in the United States. It's currently believed that only 51 out of the original 200 copies still exist. The sad part about this story is that the British Museum has two complete copies and put them on the webalmost 3 years ago. So UTexas posting them really adds nothing to the web, except provide another mirror.
It's a good thing to have school pride, but don't let it run away with you. UT Austin gets the recognition it deserves (e.g., it's rated highly, etc.). However, the tendency of Texans to give themselves too much credit for stuff like this is all too common, and is a turn-off to the rest of the nation and to those who come to visit. Listing a couple of obscure accomplishments and mentioning that it's "waaay underrated" is only going to invite deign laughter from those in positions similar to mine.
Just letting you know...you may mod me down now.
...just my 2 gil.
...but as a study Bible it falls quite short.
Is this the beginning of your strawman argument? Nobody suggested it is a study bible. You threw that out there and you then proceed to back up your blatantly incorrect assertion.
Also, it is simply not available to the general public.
Again, it's not meant to be. Unless the public is clamoring for a latin text, what does it matter that it's only available to those with internet access? The images aren't large enough (even the enlarged ones) to really read comfortably even if you are fluent in latin.
Finally, the Gutenberg Bible does not have an easily accessible concordance.
You mean it has no concordance? Dude, this is of archeological signicance only. Nobody in their right mind would learn latin so that they could study this thing. I get the feeling by now that you're simply trolling, but seeing that you got a +5 Informative, I feel compelled to respond.
the fact that Gutenberg Bible owners won't let you touch the things, much less write in the margins, means that you are pretty much hamstrung as far as study goes.
Dude, I can write in the margins. My Jiffy marker shows up great on my monitor screen, and it's always there for me. And as for being hamstrung, does my lack of speaking Latin hamstring me too?
If you are truly serious about studying the Bible as a living book, and not as a museum piece, then pick up a New King James or NIV version.
On this point I have to agree. This is a museum piece and isn't great for studying. After all, looking up Psalm 137:9 in King James Version is much more eloquent:
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
Gives it a nice Shakespearean quality I'd say. But if you're not into that, the NIV is a lot clearer:
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
Nothing quite says God Loves You like a little bit of infant seizing and rock dashing.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
If you're truly serious, you'll find that the exact words are unimportant if you're able to understand their intent. That's what the NIV Bible is trying to accomplish (although I don't agree with their results, but that's another matter). This ain't easy, however -- it generally requires a pretty good understanding of the era in which the sources were written, the sorts of mythology from which certain portions are lifted or evolved from, etc.
It seems to me that adherants to western religions are stymied by their need for a literal instruction manual to their faith. It tends to lead to less of an appreciation of the nuances of their beliefs and bogs them down in the literal interpretations, many of which were originally intended to be metaphors to begin with.
It's odd that the progression in the Axial Age moved from what I'd consider the "best" take on religion -- Buddhism, which stresses the style of thinking and individual pursuit of enlightenment versus attachment to single interpretations -- to Christianity to Islam, which is the worst offender in terms of demanding literal interpretation (since the Koran is supposed to be the end-all-be-all Word directly from the Big Guy's mouth).
I suspect that literal, close-to-source literature is attractive to a lot of people because it's easy. "God created heaven and earth, here's what he wants you to do" is a lot easier than approaches to spirituality which demand that you figure a lot out on your own.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
"Let me give you a little inside information. God hates it when it's referred to as "mythology." - Rufus, Dogma
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
A man went to a rare book shop and noticed an old bible on display. He struck up a conversation with the book shop owner.
"Yeah, actually, I had an old bible which I threw out last week. It was by someone called Guten... something."
"Not Gutenberg, I hope?"
"Yeah, that's the one."
Upon seeing the look on the book shop owner's face, the man replied:
"Ah, don't worry. It wasn't worth anything. Some guy called Martin had scribbled in it."
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I don't like the ending in many of those Bible stories. Can I rewrite them? Goliath pummles David, The walls of Jerico stay up, the Tower of Babble works, Eve does the Wild Thing with a snake, and the Isrealites die at the edge of the sea after Moses gets Carple Tunnel trying to command it to part.
Hey, the Mormons made their own Bible, why can't I? What does Joseph Smith have that I don't? (well, maybe a loyal following and charisma, but those are overrated. Aren't they?)
Table-ized A.I.
Hmmm, it looks to me like they missed the page at the beginning that reads:
Yaz.
And the British one actually has images with a high enough resolution that you can read it. (That is, if your Latin isn't at the level of a three year old Roman.)
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
Don't forget the New American Standard translation, the other major English translation.
I've recently become pretty keen on the NET Bible. It is a fairly new modern translation by a group of scolars, designed for free distribution on the Internet. (I'm still a bit disappointed with their "license", but it's better than most other modern translations. I think there needs to be a good readable modern translation that is as "free" as the KJV.)
Anyway, the NET Bible contains over 50,000 translators notes, some of which are quite useful in determining what the original text likely means. Then there are historical notes and other study notes. Definitely recommended.
how many years after Jesus's death were they written? Almost 100 years for John's gospel?
I'm not 100% sure, but I've heard they were written in the AD60-70-80 area.
In any case, Paul's letters would have been written before AD 60, so we certainly have good ancient witness to the Christian faith.
Then the Catholic church came and decided to take the scriptures away from the people and to try to hide the ceremonies and teachings forcing people to just trust the words of the priests.
Sorry, I don't want to get into a theological debate on this forum, but I respectfully disagree with this; after all, people within the Catholic Church helped establish the modern university and did a great deal to try to educate people.[1] The major problems of getting Scripture to the masses involved widespread illiteracy and the fact that, until the invention of the printing press, Bibles couldn't be easily copied and distributed. It wasn't some sort of high ranking conspiracy that kept Bibles away from the possession of the common people but rather, the issues were essentially of a practical nature.
The history of the Church is very detailed and interesting. Getting into it from a more properly academic perspective would take a bit of time and it's waaaay past my bedtime already
And even today they try to hide the actions of their priests.
That's an overgeneralization that does not apply in the vast majority of cases, but it does underly a very real and valid concern that people have. I'll quote one of Pope John Paul II's addresses at the World Youth Day in Toronto last year. I think he did a pretty good job of summing up the feelings of those of us within the Catholic Church regarding the tragedies that have come to light recently. (Of course, I'm mindful that mere words cannot erase the immense harm that's been done):
[1] Particularly, I have in mind the establishment of cathedral schools which helped address the problem of a mostly illiterate population. See Margaret Deansley: A History of the Medieval Church.
You can probably safely ignore it. If it's simply an accurate scan of the pages, then it is simply a reproduction of someone else's work (namely, Gutenberg's), not an independent creative work, and as such is only subject to Gutenberg's copyright, not an independent copyright. As the original copyright has obviously long expired, you can safely reproduce the work.
A similar principle applies to ignoring claims of copyright on digitized paintings painted before 1923 -- if it's simply an accurate copy of the painting, only the original (expired) copyright is in effect.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
a few years ago one paper, one vellum. Both copies are online in a readable form ( 1045 / 2048 ) and can be viewed side by side. See them here They actually constitute a usefull research tool in this form as all the text including margin notes is readable via the web, assuming you can read latin of course. It's always nice to see things like this being put up on the web for all to use, but the texas copy one is a little redundant in this instance.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/cain. html
Anyone can see that there is no contradiction here. Here's what I wrote to him (excuse how it sounds a bit of a mouthful at the end):
He responded:
If he's not willing to change on the simple things, then I'm not going to spend my time pursuing his more important list. I needed to establish first that my time was going to be well spent (the list he referred to was http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cr_short.html)
To me a contradiction is when two opposite, and irreconcilable things are said to be simultaneously true. Such as saying an object is only blue yet it is also only purple. Which is it? Blue or purple? In this Cain story, however, I gave a scenario under which both the statements were true. And that is not a contradiction no matter which way you look at it.
As you can see, he responded politely, I have no bitter feelings. I'm posting this so that others realise that much of the information presented is not contradictory or a problem unless you only look at it from one of many angles.