Talk:Gutenberg Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article falls within the scope of the Mainz task force. If you are interested in Mainz-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked
	This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. Once references have been added, please remove the unref=yes switch of the {{WikiProject Germany}} template on this page.

Contents 1 Improvement drive 2 Hemp Paper 3 Reaction of the Church? 4 Why is it called the "42 line" Bible? 5 Protestant,Catholic, or Something Else? 6 discussion at "Gutenberg" 7 scope of article 8 Color printing 9 other qys 10 Number of bibles? 11 Language? 12 The date the printing of the Bible was concluded

[edit] Improvement drive

The article on Johann Gutenberg has been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. Come and support it with your vote!--Fenice 21:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hemp Paper

The claim that the bible was printed on Hemp paper is rather curious. However, the British Library makes it rather clear that the bible used recycled linen made from flax, not hemp.[1] Totally different genus of plant. I also brought the number of books in line with the BL information. Thought 23:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've heard that claim, too. Not true? Trekphiler 06:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is no one going to recognize the controversy surrounding the gutenberg bible? This is the reason why I came to this article, and all it states is who made the copies and the known locations. I hope that this matter is resolved shortly.

Lue3378 03:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction of the Church?

How did the Pope like the new bibles?

[edit] Why is it called the "42 line" Bible?

Does "42-line" refer to 42 rows of printed text per page?

I thought it was that yes. Gutenberg made more Bibles later on, the second one being IIRC a 35-line Bible. Some people / institutions said to have a Gutenberg Bible are not mentioned here because they have actually a 35-line Bible, not an "original" (older) 42-line Bible. E.g. The Plantin-Moretus Museum in Antwerp has such a one. Fram 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How about putting that in the article rather than hiding it here? I was also curious, especially since I came here through a link to "42-line Bible". That nickname and its origin seems like very good material for the article. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protestant,Catholic, or Something Else?

Well I think that the article needs to clarify whether the Gutenberg Bible is a Catholic, Protestant, or "Something Else" Bible and whether or not the Pope at the time approved it. I am pretty sure (not sure of the exact date) but I am pretty sure that the Reformation had not yet "officially" started. --PaladinWriter 06:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you ask whether it was Catholic, Protestant, or other, when in your next sentence you doubt whether the Reformation had started. But how does one define a "Catholic" Bible? We can say whether or not the Pope approved it (distribution of Bibles to the laity was banned throughout most of the Middle Ages, so I doubt it), and we can say whether it had the Apocrypha, etc., which have been standard in "Catholic" Bibles since Jerome, but a Bible is a Bible is a Bible (apologies to Gertrude Stein). While it is true that some Bibles do reflect a particular interpretation (such as the Jehova's Witnesses' New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures), the goal of most Bible translators is to reproduce the original as faithfully as possible, leaving the interpretation to the reader. While I am simplifying my description of the process somewhat (since there are many manuscripts, etc.), the point is the same: the fact that it was a Bible and the first document printed with movable type are the important facts. Whether or not it was approved by a particular religious body or figure is less so. Happy editing! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article states in the introduction that it is the Vulgate translation, and as you can see at the Vulgate article, this was the standard Roman Catholic (and other denominations) Bible. Fram 19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] discussion at "Gutenberg"

There's some interesting discussion on the "Gutenberg" talk page. DGG 07:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scope of article

Both the 42 line and 36 lines editions were by Gutenberg, and this article should explain both with a clearer distinction.DGG 04:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added that paragraph a while ago, because the 36-line one needed addressing as well, but feel free to expand it and perhaps put it in as a separate section (the header giving it automatically more distinction). Fram 05:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color printing

Could someone who knows say something. I Understand that is was done in the incunabla period and abandoned soon after as not worth the trouble , since no one expected a replica of an ms. But I dont know this literature. At any rate, if such specific facts are given, it needs real references. And in any case it goes down among the trivia, which is where I've moved it. DGG 07:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The two-colour printing information was now in the main text with a reference, so the mention about the Mainz Psalter was misleading, so I removed it. (It might have been printed with Gutenberg's former equipment, but still it should be linked to Fust & Schöfer. Definitely not from "Gutenberg's workshop" anymore.) Gemena 08:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I will add the rest of the sources. Anything they were printing that year had been prepared by G, or do you think the two of them redid it all. The exact wording is that F&S put on their imprint, that they did not mentionG, that it was his former shop that he had set up and his former equip.that he had designed and made. There are sources that say in so many words that the two of them stole the credit, which I do not want to say on my own authority. They'll be added. Welcome to this article, btw. Glad for some knowledgable help. DGG 07:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say that the other works linked to Gutenberg's press should go into the main page about him and not the bible page - but you already did that. Great! I'm not an expert on G, but most books that I've read go on the safe side and give the credit from the Psalter to Fust & Schöfer. I think the best way to go is to create a page just for the Psalter. After all, it is a real masterpiece and an important part of printing history. I guess there are several - even contradicting - theories about G and Fust & Schöfer. Even if some of them are intriguing, we should be vary of not going outside the Wikipolicy: no original research. --Gemena 19:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] other qys

I understand that the proof that the 33 line could not have come first is quite definitive, because it relies on the internal evidence of the line breaks. I'll put it in when I find the ref-- I have only a secondary account. Ditto about time in a scriptorium. One year, normally.. Documentation tomorrow, or so. If someone has data for 3 yr, lets see it. DGG 07:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Locations? I don't think Bill Gates has one and I'm virtually certain the last copy to sell at auction was the Doheny copy (vol 2, New Testament) only. On Nov 11, 1994, Bill Gates bought the Codex Leicester, which is a Da Vinci notebook, for $30.8 million. I think this listing is an urban legend, though it is often repeated on the Web. pscottbrown

I agree pscottbrown, all the sources have said what he bought that day was the Da Vinici notebook and for that price. All the sites that confirm this spurious piece of information tend to be nothing but carbon copies of the Wikipedia article.Zapvet

Bill Gates purchased the Codex Leicester from Armand Hammer when it was housed in the Hammer Museum. FYI. There are other copies of the Gutenberg in private hands that are not listed in this article.

[edit] Number of bibles?

"As of 2003, the number of known extant Gutenberg 42-line Bibles includes eleven complete copies on vellum, one copy of the New Testament only on vellum, and 48 substantially complete integral copies on paper, with another divided copy on paper."

That's 11 + 1 + 48 = 60, but when adding the number of bibles catelogued below, I get 47 (1 + 1 + 1 + 3 + 12 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 9 + 10).

So how many bibles in total are there?

[edit] Language?

Am I just missing this? Was it written in German or Latin? Or something else? Vulgate is Latin Johnbod 04:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The date the printing of the Bible was concluded

In the article said that the printing of the Bible started in 1455. This was the date it was finised. It took about 5 yeras to print it and in 1455 Gutenberg was removed from the society he had by a court order. Please see the reference to confirm the date. AntoniusJ 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the impossible date given in the article.-- I have re-checked the reference cited and also the more authoritative book by Albert Karr. The original date given was, just as you say, certainly wrong. The Texas ref. gives the start as " beginning his work on the Bible around 1450." More exactly, Gutenberg received his first loan for the production of the book in the summer of 1449, a later printer (Zell, in Cologne), reported work began in 1450, and additional loans were received in 1452. (Karr, p. 158-160). The first certain dated reference to finished pages was by Piccolomini. in a letter 12 March 1555, reporting he has seen printed sheets (not the complete book) in October 1454. (Karr, p. 170) October 1455 is when Furst obtained control of the print-shop and the printed work from Gutenberg in his lawsuit. Karr deduces from this that( p.184) that Gutenberg had not yet received payment for the boos sold, as he was unable to repay Furst. I am not sure of the source of the exact but probably incorrect February 23, 1455 date--but it is clear that production would have taken several years. The first actual dated copy known (the Mazarin copy) was completed by the binder in August 1456, (Karr, p.70), but that would have been considerably after printing. (Texas ref says, reasonably, "nearly ready in October 1454 and available for sale by March 1455"

A more finished version of the above paragraph with quotations is in the works, either for this p. or the one on Gutenberg. DGG 02:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)