Wednesday, June 17, 2009

D.C. Parker, Codex Sinaiticus

I was in the British Library today and saw that their catalogue is now advertising an important new book by David Parker entitled Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World's Oldest Bible. I know some will want to quibble with the title, but some licence should be allowed for advertising. The BL printed catalogue appears more precise than the online advert in stating that it is 208 pages long. For once, book buyers may be better of getting it from the BL in Sterling rather than from Hendrickson ($39.95), who apparently won't have it till November. But note that Eisenbrauns are offering it for 8 dollars less (and with two pages fewer and the BL!), again in November. However, the best price I've seen is on at a mere $24.99, available from Nov. 15. Obviously Parker is very well placed to write a book on this subject.


  1. P.J.,

    I can't match CBD's pricing, but I can give you the permanent link to Eisenbrauns:


  2. I realize blogs are not intended to simulate a scholarly article, but I would recommend to those who initiate posts out here to make sure their brief posts are first proofread before posting for public consumption.

    This particular post by Dr. Williams has several errors and shows it was not proofed before posting. But keep reading....

    I make the same mistakes (we all do) Dr. Williams made in this post. If, for example, Dr. Williams had sent this post first to Dr. So and So, and Dr. So and So gave it a quick proofread, I think the post would reflect a little better scholarship than many other posts. And I believe the reading audience would be thankful for this quick 'behind the scenes' proofing. Of course, I could be wrong. Am I asking too much for a blog site? If so, kindly disregard this request, and any typos or misspellings I have made since I don't have a proofreader to help :O)

  3. No anonymous, we certainly cannot send our posts to someone else for proofreading. The whole idea with blogging is to be able to keep it on another more popular and personal level, so you are right, scholarly articles are something entirely different. Indeed, now it is even possible to blog from your mobile phone, or by e-mail. So, there are other great advantages, e.g., I am able to report from a conference the same day, etc.

    I always try to read through my posts a couple of times before posting, but I have an additional handicap in that English is not my mother tongue, so occasionally errors will creep in. On the other hand, most readers will not mind. On the contrary, they might even like my Swenglish style :-).

    "This particular post has several errors." Hmm, I couldn't find more than this one: "... with two pages fewer and [than] the BL!." But I may have missed some.

  4. Thanks, anon.

    There are two typos I've noticed 'and' for 'than' and 'better of' for 'better off'. I can correct these, and have often corrected typos I've noticed in messages. However, I think I should leave these typos in for historical purposes (otherwise your comment won't make sense). Of course, I apologize unreservedly. The link to Eisenbrauns now no longer works, but James has kindly provided a permanent link.

    On the general subject of proofreading blogs, I would certainly say, or rather confess, that I have lower standards as far as proofreading is concerned relative to books and journal articles. This blog, including comments has much more than a million words on, and I have often noticed typos which I am capable of correcting which I have not corrected. Correcting a typo could easily take a minute.

    However, if someone would like to proofread all of the posts on this blog, or some substantial part, and give a list of typos, I would gladly enter the corrections. See a separate post about this.

  5. You say "some will want to quibble with the title" - surely only those who are bothered about truthfulness would be bothered by this.

  6. Actually I found 4 errors:


    1. licence should be license (unless licence is how it is spelled in the UK)

    2. better of should be better off

    3. Eisenbrauns are should be Eisenbrauns is (Eisenbrauns is a company - singular - and would be used just like you would use Hendrickson)

    4. fewer and should be fewer than

    But I do agree with the benefits mentioned by TW. I'm sorry for making an issue of this. Like I said, I make the same errors.

  7. Yes, anonymous, there are differences between American and British spellings and even grammar.

    As revolting as it may sound to an American ear, it is normal in UK to say, "Burger King are hiring...."

    Your errors #'s 1,3, and 4 are erroneous.

    But note the interesting spelling of PJW's "apologize." Special bonus points for anyone who sorts this one out.

    Despite PJW's two proofing oversites (heh, heh, heh), his skill in this arena is legendary.