Transcription Request

Status
Not open for further replies.
NaphtaliPress said:
Montanus is Benito Arias Montano (Arias Montanus). I wonder if there are typos in the title; check the first edition, he has a work Exemplar, sive, de sacris fabricis Liber
Click to expand...

Later in the book he does cite from "de sacr. fabr." (instead of de temp. sacr.) so it appears this was correct.
 
Found several that were on that list, and dozens more. One in which he said "Dr Buxtorf in that place and in Dissert. de Lit Hebr" which turned out to be Buxtorf Sr for the first one and Buxtorf Jr for the second.

Current "more than usually difficult to find" list:

Aquinas. (Jer 18:18)
August. tract. 50 in John
Bullinger. de Conc.
Bullinger. on Jer and 1 Cor
Cardinalis, Hugo. on Psa 107:32
Confession of Saxony, art. 23
Gamachaeus, Philippus. Comment. in Tertiam partem Thomae, de Paenitentiae Sacramento
Helmichius. De vocatione Pastorum et institutione consistoriorum
Honnius, Festus. disp. 30, thes. 6.
Hussey. Plea for Christian Magistracy
Hussey. Objections
Hussey. epistle to the parliament
Innocentius. Fr. a S. Clara Apolog. Episcop., cap, 2
Jerome ad Marcellum (letter?)
Lavater. hom. 23 in Ezram; also on eze 8:1
Lexicon Polyglot
Lombardus, Nicholaus. (commentary?)
Luther. tom. 1, fol. 139.
Lyra. (commentary?)
Maimonides. Treatise of offering sacrifices
Majemon. In Sanhedrim, cap. 14, sect. 13 (Maimonides?)
Origin. on Leviticus, Hom. 3
Sanctius. on Eze 7:26
Schab (talmud?)
Talmud Hierosol
Talmud Babyl.
Jerusalem Talmud in Sanhedrim
Zonaras. Conc. Carthag.
Zonaras. upon the 13th canon of the eighth General Council

Need to re-check these against the bibliographies in EPC and Bownds.
 
Logan said:
Confession of Saxony, art. 23
Click to expand...
This apparently did not make Dennison. Cf. Salvart, Harmonia Confessionum fidei (1581); Hall, The Harmony of Protestant Confessions (1842). The “Repetition and Exposition of the Augsburg Confession,” or Saxon Confession, was drawn up in 1552 by Melanchthon. “De Traditionibus, id est ritibus in Ecclesia institututis, authoritate humana,” Confessio doctrinæ saxonicarum Ecclesiarum Synodo Tridentinæ oblata Anno Domini MDLI (Basileæ: Oporini, 1552; {Nürnberg?}, 1552). All of these can be found online I think; had to trace this for Bownd.
 
I've got Bownds and EPC and was going to check those tonight but wow, thanks! You're a goldmine.

Maybe I should be ashamed of myself, but I never did purchase Grand Debate. :oops:
 
By the way, I don't know what Indesign uses for its bibliography, but if you like you're welcome to my file (biblatex) when I'm done with it, for what it's worth. If I found a PDF online I added it to my URL field so that at least might be helpful in saving some time.
 
I should think if you persist in your file you should have something that should be published with new intros and critical notes. Whether the market would bear a new hard bound edition, would be really hard to say it would sell. For some reason when it comes to the Puritans, church polity is not a great seller. InDesign does not have any native bibliographical help; I do mine all manually in word as I find them.
Logan said:
By the way, I don't know what Indesign uses for its bibliography, but if you like you're welcome to my file (biblatex) when I'm done with it, for what it's worth. If I found a PDF online I added it to my URL field so that at least might be helpful in saving some time.
Click to expand...
 
Ha, no. I don't expect that this would make the New York Times best seller list. But I do think it is an important enough work that it should be republished.

I do plan on continuing. I have entered the text for the rest of the book, I just have to add all the formatting tags to everything and then proofread (from the 1646 edition) as we do our weekly readings. So D.V., it should be complete in about 10 weeks from now, assuming my assistant (wife) holds up :) . At least the vast bulk of the work. I may have to work on creating my own package for things like a scripture index.

The biblatex file is just text so you'd at least have the information for future reference. Each entry in the file looks something like this:

@book{BUX-DIS,
author={Buxtorf, Jr., Johannes},
title={Dissertatio de Lingu{\ae} Hebr{\ae}{\ae}},
publisher={Basel},
edition={},
year={1644},
translator={},
shorttitle={Dissert. de Lib. Hebr},
shortauthor={},
url={https://books.google.com/books?id=nWZkpSx1dHkC},
origdate={},
annotation={Son of scholar Johannhes Buxtorf and a Protestant Hebraist. 1599--1664},
}
 
Okay; thanks. It is additional work but as you create text file match the line endings and page breaks to the 1646; then proof reading against it is much easier. Short lines (missing text) or missing lines much easier to spot.
 
Or some way do a doc compare but it may be a lot of prep to both files would be needed to make that even helpful. I am sort of doing that with Durham on Revelation as a rather messy check; a lot has to be ignored to visually hunt for something actually missing.
 
Thank you for the suggestions. My wife and I do the proofing together. I've transcribed from the 1844 edition and then she reads out loud from the 1646. That way it's a "blind comparison". She doesn't know what I have on my page and is approaching it "fresh" so any differences are instantly noticed and we pause and correct. I think the accuracy level is excellent and the differences between the editions are jotted down, though I honestly don't care about the 1844 edition as it's not really "authoritative" in any way.

I have done it myself by reading from the 1646 out loud, recording it, and then playing it back as I read along in my file, but it takes twice as long and it's possible I'd make the same mistake in transcribing as I would in reading.
 
Well, if it has to be done, that sounds like a much more enjoyable way to do this.:) And correct; the Armoury work was not a tightly critical undertaking and dare I say it does raise the question of whether a whole new edition of Rutherford's Lex Rex is needed?
Logan said:
Thank you for the suggestions. My wife and I do the proofing together. I've transcribed from the 1844 edition and then she reads out loud from the 1646. That way it's a "blind comparison". She doesn't know what I have on my page and is approaching it "fresh" so any differences are instantly noticed and we pause and correct. I think the accuracy level is excellent and the differences between the editions are jotted down, though I honestly don't care about the 1844 edition as it's not really "authoritative" in any way.
Click to expand...
 
NaphtaliPress said:
I dunno; someone give me another lifetime?
Click to expand...

It definitely is another book I've had on my mind.

But that reminds me, this book gave me my first introduction to the "English Annotations", or "Westminster Annotations" and I'm curious: they don't seem to have been reprinted since 1657, is that because there were better options available or some other reason? I don't know what the complexity of the text is or if it would be worthwhile but having a commentary worked on by multiple members of the Westminster Assembly and some really excellent scholars of the day sounds appealing.
 
It had three different editions; some swapping out of authors, so a critical edition would have to take that into account. For some reason it never really had staying power. Maybe the mostly single author endeavors like Henry and Poole were simply better; they had the staying power that is for sure. As far as Lex Rex, it needs critical treatment so a tremendous amount of work. I have proposed on and off over many years that a group should form with the goal of publishing all of Rutherford but so far no one has done so. Really, some institution needs to take that under their wing so it can be cross generational if need be. I think I know how it could be done but it needs as I say an organization, many workers, and money, the last being the most elusive thing in Reformed publishing.
Logan said:
NaphtaliPress said:
I dunno; someone give me another lifetime?
Click to expand...

It definitely is another book I've had on my mind.

But that reminds me, this book gave me my first introduction to the "English Annotations", or "Westminster Annotations" and I'm curious: they don't seem to have been reprinted since 1657, is that because there were better options available or some other reason? I don't know what the complexity of the text is or if it would be worthwhile but having a commentary worked on by multiple members of the Westminster Assembly and some really excellent scholars of the day sounds appealing.
Click to expand...
 
I think James Dickson had attempted to publish all of Rutherford's works a while back, and when I asked him about it a couple years ago, I believe he said the most difficult thing was trying to get the Latin material translated.
 
Interesting. How would one contact James?

Got automatic scripture indices working now. Still needs some tweaking but it's progress.
 
Made a couple other tweaks. Nicely (for the digital format at least) all of the citations are now hyperlinked and page numbers each work is cited on are listed and linked in the bibliography. I can make the links black and unobtrusive but made them blue for now so they are obvious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wayne
  • Locked
Edwards Sermon Transcriptions
Replies
0
Views
1K
Wayne
Wayne
Back
Top