Is NT MSS Images Comprehensive?

[Abram K-J]

I'm wondering about this product: is everything (for which manuscript images exist somewhere in the world) included in the module? Or is it just a sampling? I wasn't entirely clear from the product description, though maybe I missed something--and the "over 1300 images" it notes does sound like a lot.

 

I ask because I'm interested in the product, but also because the DSS Images module contained less than I think there are in existence. (Will that module see future updates?) To be fair, it was pretty clearly noted on the DSS page what was included, so I can't say I was expecting any more.

 

[Matthew Burgess]

Only the manuscripts mentioned in the description of the module are included. I believe that the phrase "over 1300 images" treats each leaf of a manuscript as a separate image.

 

Also, it's worth noting that many of these images are not images of the manuscripts themselves; they're images of printed facsimiles of the manuscripts.

[Matthew Burgess]

And Abram is correct that the DSS Images module is not comprehensive... it contains a collection of photographs of four scrolls taken by John Trever in 1948. However, almost all of the scrolls (with the exception of some extremely fragmentary pieces) have been photographed at this point, and many of these are available commercially.

[Abram K-J]

Thanks, Matthew.

 

I didn't specify, but I was wondering if the images are comprehensive specifically in relation to the manuscripts mentioned/included in the module.

[Matthew Burgess]

Ahh... my mistake! I don't own the module, but my guess is that for the NT, it would be as complete as the facsimiles on which it's based. (I'm sure someone can confirm or deny this.) However, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus all include portions of the LXX and/or noncanonical texts, but the screenshots on the relevant Accordance pages suggest that these aren't present.

[Abram K-J]

Ah, yes, the LXX portions would be a dream come true. For now, if someone can confirm that all NT facsimiles are included, maybe by the time I work through them, the LXX portions of the same manuscripts will be ready on Accordance.

[Rick Bennett]

Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus include the NT portions only (Washingtonensis only contains the Gospels). This is how they were provided to us by CSNTM. With the exception of 2882 they are all images of facsimile editions. The facscimile edition Vaticanus is based on is also called a pseudo-facsimile because it was typeset rather than photographed from the actual MSS. However, the others are all based on actual images.

 

For Sinaiticus we also had links to codexsinaiticus.org created at each Folio notation that will open the website to that specific image (works best in Firefox from my testing when we created this).

 

With the exception of Vaticanus, we also included the full text of the introduction / front matter of the facsimile edition which contains some helpful background information for research.

[Anon]

The images in the DSS Images are that of Trever’s color images. Trever photographed the St. Mark’s Scrolls twice, once in color (March 1948) and once in black and white (Feb. 1948). The images used in the DSS Images module are based on the color negatives. These are not exhaustive, as they only capture the scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery (see Weston Fields The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History.) The imaging of the scrolls is not exhaustive, but it’s getting there. One can certainly appreciate the efforts made by IAA and Google to present the images—but even these images don’t tell the entre story as most scrolls were imaged more than once, some twice. To see a history of the images, you’ll need Tov and Pfann’s Complete Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls Microfiche Edition.

 

To see the value of the earliest images, compare one of 1QISa^a images from DJD XXXII with those of Google. Google’s images of The Great Isaiah Scroll has, since 1948, further deteriorated, thus clearly demonstrating the value of the earliest images.