Subject: tc-list A Lamentation and A Warning

From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:49:26 -0700

Dear TC list readers:

I do not know how many of you have used or have visited the Ancient Biblical
Manuscript Center here in California. Nor do I know how many of you are
cognizant of the proper archiving of films: so I shall inform you of some
major problems facing every TC type scholar in America.

I have been following the ABMC's history ever since its inception (in about
1978). I have personally visited the facility numerous times over the years,
especially during 1992 - 1994. I have donated several hundreds of dollars to
the ABMC, and still support its mission. I have had several nice long
conversations with its original director (James Sanders, though he may not
remember me). I have used their services ever since 1990 -1991.

There are two distinct "departments" to the ABMC.  One concerns their own
personal holdings (the Claremont films, and Qumran material). The other is
the IGNTP films. The ABMC is the designated curator for ALL of the IGNTP
films. It is with this fairly large collection of films of Biblical MSS,
that the most problems are occurring. According to the policies (enumerated
by a former director,  Ms. Lundberg) of the IGNTP, their films are to be
sent out to qualified users, and no circulation copies need be made. This is
disastrous!  I, and perhaps some of you, have actually received original
35mm films from the ABMC's IGNTP holdings. Instead of having the necessary
funds to provide a circulation copy, the originals are sometimes sent out.
These originals are in many cases now damaged beyond repair. I cite the
original films of minuscule 1175, and 104 as examples.

The ABMC, needs to be told by the SBL (nee, the IGNTP folks) to safeguard
the originals, and to only send out circulation copies. If a researcher
needs to use an original he/she should then go on site. But this is only
part of the problem.

True, the films are kept in a vault, and are somewhat temperature and
humidity controlled. But these measures are a waste of time if you place on
the films -- rubber bands, which emit acids and noxious fumes which will
slowly corrode the film.  These measures are a waste of time if the tattered
films are patched together with acidic scotch tape, which some are. They are
a waste of time when films, (originals mind you!) are being fed into
automatic film spooling machines and having scratches and gauges put into
the films for many feet in some cases.  Several films have been torn into
several pieces, and taped back together upside down! The films should each
be covered with an acid-free paper stock, like the British Library provides,
not rubber bands.

I have also gotten films which were copies of copies of copies which were
practically useless! Look at their copy of 2197 for example, and their
copies of 020, 330 are in shambles. When the ABMC mails out copies of
microfiche and actual photos, the packing is not sufficient, and these
precious originals are subject to damage just by simply mailing them in
shabby envelopes.

Imagine the cost of replacing these films!! Has the SBL and the IGNTP money
to throw away? These precious films are all we now presently have access to
(thankfully the Library of Congress is much more of a proper curator of
their film collections).  Until all Biblical manuscripts are available in
sharp living color (24 bit) images on the internet (and this may never
happen), we in America must rely on facilities such as the ABMC.  And we are
slowly losing a national treasure.

Mr. Phelps, seems to be aware (the current director) of some of the
problems. I know because I told him in numerous letters. But I have seen no
remedial actions, and I was just there on September 16, 1999. He usually
says that he has no funds and is understaffed. If so, then the IGNTP portion
should look for a proper custodian. The Claremont holdings, on the other
hand, are kept safe, no originals are sent out, and circulation copies are
kept. A fee is usually charged also when Claremont films are copied. Not so
with the SBL/IGNTP holdings.

Today, when a researcher receives films form the ABMC, he/she may be getting
films of very poor quality. Films so degraded that much pertinent
information is lost: films so scratched and dirty that they are truly
defaced. Another surprise is getting a film which is not a photograph
(negative) of the original manuscript, rather it is of a facsimile edition.
This is a shame, for now the researcher is put at a further disadvantage,
he/she is several steps away from what the original actually looked like.
The ABMC needs to inform researchers that the film is of a facsimile
edition, and not taken directly from the actual MSS. Such is the case for
these manuscripts, codices 01, 02, 03, 012,  032, et cetera. These need to
be marked as such and not just mailed out as a surprise to the ignorant
researcher. This is a poor scenario for critical research. But this is the
lot of all those in America which rely upon the SBL/IGNTP films.

The library at Claremont is just now becoming the curator of the ABMC, will
this include the SBL films too? Will their miserable conditions improve? Or
will only the Claremont films be properly cared for?

I wrote Dr. Gordon Fee in 1996 and informed him of the problem. He kindly
directed me to the secretary of the IGNTP,  Dr. Paul McReynolds. In a
letter, dated May 12, 1996, I carefully informed Paul of the problem.
Perhaps McReynolds had died back then in 1996, as he totally ignored me. If
he is still alive he has some answering to do.

The IGNTP films NOW need emergency repair. A true archivist needs to inspect
and repair each film. Copies need to be identified, and originals indicated
as such. Funding for replacements will be needed. Many of the films from
Europe go for $100 each and higher.
Until repairs are done and until changes are implemented, American scholars
will suffer. I am aware that many TC users may never even know what it
is/was like to see a truly sharp copy of some manuscript film. Instead they
naively put up with a terrible copy, and their research suffers accordingly,
and hence the entire Body of believers may suffer in time.

The imperialistic tendencies of the Institute in Munster forbid practical
use of their films (and they too have some very poor films!). Americans are
told to "come" to Munster to see a few images.
Munster guards their vast collection like a starving dog guards its only
bone. Nor are they interested in sharing their films, they have formed
"contracts" with the holding institutions which effectively lock out
American users. Hopefully the Internet and the many on-going digitizing
projects will make Munster obsolete.  Until then we must protect what we
have, and I am stating that the collection at the ABMC is in poor shape.  It
is all we have. (Other than the Library of Congress and nice places like the
U. of Michigan).

As a soldier, I still fight. And as a child of God, I still dream and hope.
I believe we can save our precious films.  The SBL can find the funds, and
proper archiving methods can be forced upon the curators. Curators who sit
back and watch a treasure rot!!  Paul are you listening now??

at your service,
Mr. Gary S. Dykes

---

From: [email-masked] (U.B.Schmid)
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:23:34 +0200

Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote:
[...]
> told to "come" to Munster to see a few images.

Gary, you sound as if you've acquired first hand knowledge. Did you actually go 
to Munster to only "see a few images" without having access to complete films 
from the entire collection?

> American users. 

Are you insinuating the notion that Munster deliberately set up contracts with 
the holding institutions in order to "lock out American users"? And, if so, do 
you have any serious information to support your charge?

BTW-- Your complaints about Munster sound a little bit strange to my ears. Why 
do you lay so much emphasize on "Americans" or "American users"? Given the 
Munster Institute's policy, it's the same for every user, whether Norwegian, 
British, South African, or German. Is there another conspiracy theory 
lurking...?

------------------------------------------
Dr. Ulrich Schmid
[email-masked]

---

From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 06:26:45 -0700

> British, South African, or German. Is there another conspiracy theory

I have been invited to Munster to views any of their films. However, I
cannot afford to view them. And I know that some (such as 1115) are not
worth viewing, so who would reimburse (for travel costs) me after I got
there and saw poor films??  However, they should send the films directly to
me. Do you not agree??  Anybody is "locked out" who lives far away, come on
man where are your senses?

They will not send out their films due to contractual agreements. And
scholars who are some distance from them have little chance of seeing their
films, especially those far away in America. American scholars need to focus
on their own resources and not look to Munster, who is protecting their
"investment" according to Barabra Aland (from TWO reliable sources, whom I
shall not name).

I can perceive that you sir, are not restricted to relying upon American
resources for your MS film needs. If you were you would lose your innocence
and face a reality we face every day. I do not want to make this a political
issue, however the Germans do, as they will not send their films out to
anyone outside their institutions. Why not share?  I believe you know why.

I used the word "American" often as we need to shore up our resources, and
we will share with the entire world, as we have been. A number of the films
in Germany were filmed by Americans, and now the Americans are forbidden to
view them, unless we spend lots of cash.

However, the real point of my original post, is that we Americans need to
take care of what we have, and this may not involve you.  As far as
"contracts" are concerned, we allow for others to use the films, we
circulate them, that is how contracts were arranged here. Why not there? For
more go off line, as I do not want to become too obsessed with Munster's
monopoly, to me it is a crime. I think perhaps you ought to question your
own institutions, they may share the truth with you, or they may not.

at your service,
Mr. Gary S. Dykes

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 06:26:35 -0700

> from the entire collection?

That was his point!  To see anything one has to travel across the 
ocean.

> you have any serious information to support your charge?

Ulrich, the point is that it takes a LOT for an American to be able to 
travel there.  The lock-out is economic, because it costs me 
several times what it might cost you to travel to Munster.  If they 
would make the images available in other ways, this wouldn't be a 
problem.  But for now, their policy effectively locks out people like 
me (and apparently like Gary).  

> British, South African, or German. Is there another conspiracy theory 

No, just an excessive measure of attitude on Munster's part.  Gary, 
I hope I've represented you accurately.  If not, feel free to throw 
something at me.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo."

---

From: "DC PARKER" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:48:33 GMT

A number of claims have been made concerning the Munster policy 
with regard to the use of microfilms.  Perhaps it is worth stating the 
obvious, by suggesting that the claims overlook the Institut's 
function, which is to be a centre for research, not a distribution centre 
serving the needs of NT manuscript researchers world-wide.  The fact 
that those who work in the Institut are as welcoming to visitors as 
they are, in the midst of the demands of running the place, doing their 
research, and teaching, demonstrates how unjust the accusations of 
imperialism etc are.

For the rest, I concur with the sentiments in Maurice Robinson's 
message of Monday afternoon.

David Parker

---

From: "Glen Thompson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:36:30 -0600

I can remember beey warmly received as a young student by the 
people at Muenster, and from all I hear they are still as helpful as 
possible.

In the past decade I have visited dozens of manuscript libraries 
across Europe, and with very few exceptions, they have all been quite 
willing to allow perusal of their manuscripts and/or microfilms.  At 
times the Laurenziana in Florence gets overly protective and you need 
letters of introduction to get in (a good idea for any research 
trip), and that might happen anywhere.  The only places that is truly 
difficult to get into are the monasteries of Mt. Athos (and probably 
the other monasteries farther east, but I have not attempted them.).

Some libraries, like the Bibl. Nationale in Paris are increasingly 
asking visiting scholars to use their microfilms rather than the 
manuscripts themselves, and I hope that these places remain 
reasonable about making exceptions when it is important for the 
scholar to see the actual document.  But these measures are being 
forced on libraries because of the theft that continues to occur even 
under very strict policies (as at the Vatican several years ago).

My own experience has been that most libraries will arrange to make 
microfilm copies for you, if requested, but that quickly becomes 
expensive.  So once again you get back to the dollar issues.  
Increased funding for the IGNTP would help solve many of the issues 
there, although I believe a change in location to a better endowed 
sight (such as the Hill Monastic Microfilm Library in Collegeville 
MN) would produce a more stable atmosphere for future work.

Glen Thompson