Talk:Gutenberg Bible

Terminology: complete versus perfect

Following the example of the British Library's webpages on the B42, I've changed 'perfect' and 'imperfect' to 'complete' and 'incomplete'. I feel these are more comprehensible to the layperson and convery just as uch information to the specialist. Jimi 66 (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

I made a couple of small changes today (October 7, 2008) because the article suggested that Gutenberg invented movable type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.253.175 (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Reaction of the Church?

How did the Pope like the new bibles?

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)

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)

Gutenberg Bible printed in the 1450ies, Martin Luther's Ninety-Five Theses in 1517134.3.76.108 (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

discussion at "Gutenberg"

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

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)

I've taken out the info about the 36-line Bible and made a separate page for it for these reasons: - at least in the UK, the term Gutenberg Bible usually refers to the 42-Line Bible alone - scholars are pretty much agreed it's impossible to tell if the 36-Line Bible was printed by Gutenberg, or by someone who had bought type from him. Jimi 66 (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

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?

That list seems to give numbers of institutions, a few of which hold two or three. Time for a cleanup... Shimgray | talk | 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

...done! Shimgray | talk | 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Very nice! I did look on a couple of Russian Library websites, but no mention. Now I see why! Johnbod 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I count 48 copies in the table. That includes two Hubay-numbers "?" (British Library) and two "-" (Russia, after 1985). So I use this number elsewhere in the article. -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Moscow copies

I've just removed this from the list - it gave two copies in Moscow. Do we have a source for these? They're not in the ISTC... Shimgray | talk | 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Found them here. Interesting cases... war booty from Lepzig. Shimgray | talk | 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Rochester Institute of Technology

I dont know if one page constitutes as anything significant, but RIT does own one. it is in the Cary Collection at the university's library. Skiendog 19:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

University of Greifswald

As far as I know, the University of Greifswald's university library owns a copy of a 36 line Gutenberg bible. Axt (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Another addition

Someone just added this to the table:

• Bibliothek Otto Schäfer, Schweinfurth || ? || Vol. 1, Imperfect, paper.

Anyone know anything about it? I've removed it pending a cite. Shimgray | talk | 20:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Media references

I've just replaced the references to the B42's appearance in Dr Who and a Futurama film. These had been removed by Ekwos who objected to having references to 'worthless and forgettable garbage' on the B42's page. Whether or not you think this film and Tv series are 'garbage' , I think the role the B42 plays in contemporary culture of all sorts is relevant and interesting. The current Media references section does seem unbalanced - there must be loads of such references to the B42, and we've only got three. I'd encourage anyone who knows of others to add them here. Jimi 66 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I do know of one other instance. On the series "Pawn Stars" a leaf from a Gutenberg Bible was presented for sale at the pawn shop. This particular leaf was said to have come from the Gabriel Wells Bible mentioned in the article. The show's book expert valued the leaf at around $80K after giving her opinion that the leaf was authentic. I tried looking through the page's history since the current page does not have a "media references" section, and did not see that it was included, though since the page history is extensive it's possible I missed it. 2604:2D80:9F0D:2B00:E8F9:E01:5F44:CB6C (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The Morgan's Old Testament copy is online

One of The Morgan Library & Museum's Gutenberg Bible on paper has been digitized by the HUMI project and is now available online in its entirety. The link to the welcome page is http://www.themorgan.org/gutenberg and the link straight to the images is http://www.themorgan.org/collections/works/gutenberg/page/1 . Please consider adding one of these links to the article.

Morganlibrary (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you digitise the other copies, you could add the URLS to the table in the 'Surviving copies' section yourself.Jimi 66 (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

language

As said before, we should mention the bible was in latin, and it should be mentioned in the first sentence. I didn't make the change, in case I'm mistaken. --Rob (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No copies in Brazil

In 2010, IP 201.50.130.2 added as fact to the Portuguese Wikipedia article that 1 copy of the Gutenberg Bible existed in the National Library in Rio de Janeiro. That would naturally have been a sensational find. In 2012, IP 189.15.41.52 expanded to 2 copies, and added it as a fact to the French language article. Finally in 2015, IP 179.232.176.40 added it here to the English article. I have removed it. --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Problems with opening sentence

In light of Jikji, which is older than the Gutenberg Bible, the opening sentence “first major book printed using mass-produced movable type” may need improvement.

Either the article is dismissing Jikji as not major (which requires a citation) or the sentence is leaning on the qualification of “mass-produced”. However, I don’t think the casual reader will pick up on that, it that was the intent.

It would be accurate to say ““first major book printed using mass-produced movable type in Europe” following the lead of Johannes Gutenberg.

There must be a better way to establish the significance of this book, without dismissing or ignoring Jikji.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

14 March 2017‎ edit

There's a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Upwards and onwards! about the reliability of sources and certain claims made in this article. Please contribute, and many thanks for considering my request. Ping: MaxEnt, Sam Sailor, Aw1805, and Kpalion: — Poeticbent talk 17:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gutenberg Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbi.edu.pl/book_reader.php?p=32&s=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbi.edu.pl/book_reader.php?p=1527&s=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710110502/http://www.humi.keio.ac.jp/treasures/incunabula/B42/keio/vol_1/contents.html to http://www.humi.keio.ac.jp/treasures/incunabula/B42/keio/vol_1/contents.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gutenberg Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901123038/http://lbis.kenyon.edu/sca/exhibits/incunabula/z241b58.phtml to http://lbis.kenyon.edu/sca/exhibits/incunabula/z241b58.phtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150415225321/http://enriqueta.man.ac.uk:8180/luna/servlet/view/group/143 to http://enriqueta.man.ac.uk:8180/luna/servlet/view/group/143

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gutenberg Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160803114248/http://bibliotheque-numerique.bibliotheque-agglo-stomer.fr/collection/662-ancien-testament-bible/ to http://bibliotheque-numerique.bibliotheque-agglo-stomer.fr/collection/662-ancien-testament-bible/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Possibly tendentious wording

Here's a line from the text that seems questionable to me, a non-expert on the topic: "He had copied the technology of the printing press and was the first European to print with movable type, but his greatest achievement was arguably demonstrating that the process of printing actually produced books."

Who did Gutenberg copy the technology of the printing press from? Is the idea that printing predates Gutenberg, e.g., in Asia? Because that's not the same thing as saying he copied it from anyone. Wouldn't it be correct instead to say that he independently invented it--or "came up with" it, if one thinks not being the first to a new technology means one did not in any sense invent it? This is setting aside whether Gutenberg actually invented moveable type. Like I said, I'm not an expert on the subject, so I'll leave the editing to someone else.108.52.186.151 (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The basic technology of the press had been in use since Roman times for oil, wine etc. Use for woodblock printing of images, often including some text, on textiles had been around in Europe well before Gutenburg, and a few decades before the woodcut on paper had become common. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Paper size error

The information derived from Man 2002 on paper sizes and proportions is inaccurate, as has been demonstrated on the exlibris-l list. I propose to make this change :

The 42-line Bible was printed on the size of paper known as 'Royal'. A full sheet of Royal paper measures 42 x 60 centimetres and a single untrimmed folio leaf measures 42 x 30 cm. There have been attempts to claim that the book was printed on larger paper measuring 30.7 x 44.5 cm. This would correspond to Needham's 'Super-Royal' paper, but this assertion is contradicted by the dimensions of existing copies. For example, the leaves of the copy in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, measure 40 × 28.6 cm. This is typical of other folio Bibles printed on Royal paper in the fifteenth century. Most fifteenth-century printing papers have a width-to-height ratio of 1:1.4 (e.g. 30:42 cm) which is mathematically a ratio of 1 to the square root of 2. Man suggests that this ratio was chosen to match the so-called Golden Ratio of 1:1.6; in fact the ratios are not at all similar (a difference of about 12%). The ratio of 1:1.4 was a long established one for medieval paper sizes.

Acceptable ?

My apologies for jumping the gun and deleting the erroneous paragrah, my first editorial visit here.

Andrewbrown (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Eric White has suggested a further change to the draft I originally drew up (posted by Andrew Brown) in order to remove the mention of Super Royal paper. Instead of:

There have been attempts to claim that the book was printed on larger paper measuring 30.7 x 44.5 cm. This would correspond to Needham's 'Super-Royal' paper, but this assertion is contradicted by the dimensions of existing copies.

Replace with:

There have been attempts to claim that the book was printed on larger paper measuring 30.7 x 44.5 cm, but this assertion is contradicted by the dimensions of existing copies.

I suggest we insert this new version into the main page. David Shaw —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)