> 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: http://www.freie-bibel.de/inofficial/skreutzer/elberfelder/textvergleich_elberfelder_1871_1907_johannes_1.pdf 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. Sincerely, Stephan Kreutzer http://www.freie-bibel.de _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
