[sword-devel] German Elberfelder 1871 Bible module isn't authentic
skreutzer at freiebibel.de
Wed Jul 31 04:12:00 MST 2013
> If you can identify the text, we would be happy to update the name to be
more accurate (but not to be more vague, as you propose).
I actually though it would be your job to identify the modules you provide.
However, you may diff it with German Elberfelder 1905 and will most likely
find less differences between so-called 1871 and so-called 1905 than
between original 1871 and so-called/original 1905. The text you're
providing as Elberfelder 1905 seems to be 1927, with little changes in its
digital form (ortography etc.). While 1905 and 1927 are very similar, 1871
and 1905 are not. Elberfelder 1907, which is almost identical to 1905,
differs to 1871 over John 1 at the following instances:
While this PDF doesn't reflect the changes in the footnotes, there are many
of them. Additionally, 1871 has a unique feature in comparison with 1905,
which are the Textus receptus variant notes. 1905 has them too, but not
directly linked via endnote into the text. 1905 instead has it as a
separate appendix without endnote marks in the text. We believe that at one
time one person digitalized a text similar to 1927, which then got
mislabeled as 1905 and then as 1871, where it is essentially the same text,
except modifications that where made to it by different separate parties
during the process of distribution.
If you diff your 1871 with your 1905 module, I expect that both are almost
identical, so that the so-called 1871 can be dropped, because it's already
available as 1905. Unfortunately, I can't diff your modules myself, because
your Sword format is a binary format.
> What is hopefully conveyed is that this text matches all of the other
1871 Elberfelders found on the internet, even though we know that this does
not match printed 1871 Elberfelders.
We of the project "Freie Bibel" have already digitalized Matthew, Hebrews
and James of the original Elberfelder 1871, Acts is in the making. We try
to get websites to change to the original text, to re-label it or to drop
it completely in order to aviod further confusion, since one scientific
publication (bachelor thesis) in Germany already cites the wrong 1871 text.
> I don't have any further information on the text other than that Joachim
Ansorg apparently procured & produced it.
It seems there is no way to contact Joachim Ansorg. His website is down,
and if I remember correctly, he's not responding on his E-Mail address.
More information about the sword-devel