Leningrad Codex Images

[farcas]

It would be great if the Leningrad Codex Images were tagged with he references.

 

http://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=Leningrad+Codex+Images

 

 

Thanks!

[Λύχνις Δαν]

I'm not following you here. The images are tagged with the verse ranges they cover so that they can run in parallel with a text. Or do you mean you would like to be able to move your mouse over the image and see the verse references in a popup window ? Or something like that ?

 

Tx

D

[Fabian]

I belive he means in the same way like BW has done.

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Ah ok I see thanx - had to look it up. You'd want to be able to turn them on or off I would think - probably you can. But yep I get it now.

 

thx

D

Edited April 12, 2016 by Daniel Semler

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi,

 

I was  surprised to learn that the verses aren't tagged like they are in BW.

 

 

(Btw, my screenshot tool interfered with the parallel pane scrolling; since the verses are tagged (which can be toggled on and off), it scrolls perfectly in sync with the MT, etc.)

 

But the main reason I'm posting is that I'm even more surprised by the review on the link above. Sorry to say, but every point is inaccurate:

 

1. BW10 offered it in Mar 2015, about half a year (?) earlier than Acc.

 

2. See no. 1.

 

3. They are in color in BW.

 

4. Same for BW as in Acc.

 

I only point this out so Acc can address it and keep its integrity.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

[farcas]

I will say -  on another related front - the DSS index that now includes the links to the online mss at Leon Levy Digital Library is amazing!

 

More of this mixing and matching between the software and online resources is the win. No company alone will be able to hold all the images, but the interest is putting them up left and right. Doing an index for all mss in or referenced in Accordance would be great: NT, LXX, MT, DSS/Q, etc. That way the user can search for the text, images, contents all in one place.

 

 

Thanks!

[Peter Brylov Christensen]

Hi Michel, it was brought to my attention that you had some issues with my review of the Leningrad Codex images, and I'd like to clarify a few things point by point:
 

The photographs of Leningradensis in Bibleworks are, as far as I can tell from the picture you uploaded, still the very same ones taken by Bruce and Kenneth Zuckerman and not by another party: The photograph in your picture looks completely identical to the one in Accordance except for the tagging points, so your critique of point 1 is likely not correct. But then again, I'm not a BW user myself and in spite of checking things again I couldn't find anything on their webpage either, so I'd be happy if you'd check the BW module for copyright info on these photos so we can get to the bottom of this. But I'll admit that I'd be very surprised if the West Semitic Research Project does not appear.

Having looked up everything again, I can confirm that point 2 is wrong, like you said. I did write "at least to my knowledge" as a semi-disclaimer, but that does by no means excuse the error, so it should be corrected. The BW webpage is apparently silent on when they acquired the resource, but after digging around in their forums, the earliest mention I could find, was on April 20th 2015, so March 2015 sounds very plausible. They did at any rate get it before Accordance did.

But points 3 and 4 aren't “inaccurate" like you say as I am not even comparing softwares there but rather the perks of having the digital resource versus print editions of Leningrad Codex images, which are (again at least to my knowledge) in black and white. I have yet to come across a text edition in color, but I will not categorically deny that such a thing exists out there.

(NB: Note that the review has already been edited, so point 2 does no longer exist.)
 

With kind regards

 

Peter

Edited April 13, 2016 by Peter Brylov Christensen

[Fabian]

I would love to have for the $129 the tagging like BW.

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi Michel, it was brought to my attention that you had some issues with my review of the Leningrad Codex images, and I'd like to clarify a few things point by point:

 

The photographs of Leningradensis in Bibleworks are, as far as I can tell from the picture you uploaded, still the very same ones taken by Bruce and Kenneth Zuckerman and not by another party: The photograph in your picture looks completely identical to the one in Accordance except for the tagging points, so your critique of point 1 is likely not correct. But then again, I'm not a BW user myself and in spite of checking things again I couldn't find anything on their webpage either, so I'd be happy if you'd check the BW module for copyright info on these photos so we can get to the bottom of this. But I'll admit that I'd be very surprised if the West Semitic Research Project does not appear.

 

Having looked up everything again, I can confirm that point 2 is wrong, like you said. I did write "at least to my knowledge" as a semi-disclaimer, but that does by no means excuse the error, so it should be corrected. The BW webpage is apparently silent on when they acquired the resource, but after digging around in their forums, the earliest mention I could find, was on April 20th 2015, so March 2015 sounds very plausible. They did at any rate get it before Accordance did.

 

But points 3 and 4 aren't “inaccurate" like you say as I am not even comparing softwares there but rather the perks of having the digital resource versus print editions of Leningrad Codex images, which are (again at least to my knowledge) in black and white. I have yet to come across a text edition in color, but I will not categorically deny that such a thing exists out there.

 

(NB: Note that the review has already been edited, so point 2 does no longer exist.)

 

With kind regards

 

Peter

 

 

Hi Peter,

 

I was responding to the following:

 

 

Your review is of Acc's‭ "‬exceptional tool.‭" ‬But it is not exceptional‭ ‬-‭ ‬it is not the only one in a Bible Software program,‭ ‬it wasn't the first one to appear,‭ ‬and it lacks some features of the BW version. And, Acc's and BW's tools are both based on the WSRP ("Leningradensis - images are Copyright (2015) by West Semitic Research (https://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/). All rights reserved. Used by permission").

 

Regarding no.‭ ‬1,‭ ‬I was responding to‭ "‬you won't find images of similar high quality anywhere else.‭" ‬I thought‭ (‬and I think most readers would think‭) ‬that you were referring to the tool under review,‭ ‬i.e.,‭ ‬Acc's high quality images are similar to those of the WSRP.‭ ‬You confirm this in no.‭ ‬3,‭ "‬In addition to the high quality of the photographs‭ [‬in Acc‭] ‬.‭ ‬.‭ ‬.‭ ‬.‭" ‬Regarding no.‭ ‬4,‭ ‬the implication of the previous points is you can either go to Leningrad or buy the Acc module.

 

Granted,‭ ‬you may have not checked one of the major players in Bible Software at the time,‭ ‬but now that you know these things,‭ ‬your revision is still misleading.‭ ‬Addressing that revision with three points now:‭ ‬1.‭ "‬Similar high quality‭" ‬still sounds like you are talking about the "exceptional" Acc module compared to the WSRP.‭ ‬My critique of point‭ ‬1‭ ‬has nothing to do with who prepared the work.‭ ‬So my critique stands.‭ ‬2.‭ ‬This sounds better without original no.‭ ‬2.‭ ‬3.‭  ‬The implication of the high quality images in Acc,‭ ‬that‭ "‬you won't find anywhere else‭" (‬still untrue since they are the same ones in BW10) is that you can either go to Leningrad, or buy the module in Acc.

 

Peter, this isn't personal. And I think it's a relatively private matter among a few of us on this Forum. I just think the evidence shows the opposite of what you said - the BW's version is more exceptional than the Acc one (at least at this point in time), and some statements are still patently false. One of the things I admire about Acc is their integrity. Knowing that they are the same images in BW, at least remove the statement "you won't find anywhere else." And if your point in no. 1 really is that the WSRP has high quality images, and that you can't find such high quality images even in Accordance, then please clarify.

 

I'm still looking forward to new Ugaritic releases. Any news?

 

Regards,

 

Michel

[Peter Brylov Christensen]

‭"‬I thought‭ (‬and I think most readers would think‭) ‬that you were referring to the tool under review"

For this reason I won't argue further on what I meant, which is rather far from your conclusions as I was mostly referring to the work of the WSRP themselves with Accordance serving as medium for their tool. But I did not know that BW had it at the time. I checked for it, but I evidently missed it. Consequently, I do not agree with most of your critiques as I have a different interpretation of what I wrote. But all of this does not matter. On the contrary, what you got out of it all is really the crucial point here. It is of no value what I intended to convey if it sounds misleading. And I do see why you (and others) would interpret it this way. In retrospect, I should have chosen my words more carefully. Anyway, in the light of all this, I would also prefer to have the review removed. Finally, I did not take any of this personally, Michel - we're all among friends here! In fact, I'm grateful that it was brought to my attention.

 

Now, as for new releases, I'm not sure how much I may disclose in terms of details, but taking valued note of choosing one's words carefully, I can safely and honestly say that I'm working as much as possible on it every day including weekends. It's one of the reasons why I haven't been frequenting these boards for a long while now. I do not know exactly when there will be a new release, but we are not talking months here.

 

With kind regards

 

Peter