To know a lot only exposes how little we know? - Puritans

[davejonescue]

I found this quote, and it makes me think of maybe a reason Puritan Search isn't more widely talked about or promoted? Could it be the ability to look up and search almost the entire scope of Puritan & Non-Conformist thought could actually be a hindrance to the cause of a straightforward definition or consensus? Is it counter-productive to the current push for Puritan acceptance? It seems just when we thought we had a grasp on what they "tended to believe" then comes the ability to scour the literary corpus, to find out what they all believed on any given topic. I don't know. I just think something like Puritan Search would be a bigger hit with those who are interested in Puritans, but it kind of seems some are more content with an "idea" of what Puritans believed rather than the facts.

"Patrick Collinson, whom Coffey has called ‘the leading historian of Puritanism’, has noted the variety of Puritans and said that any general definition of them should not concentrate too narrowly on any one of them. He explains—
The coherence of our concept of Puritanism depends upon knowing as little about particular Puritans as possible. It might disintegrate altogether if we knew everything. Historians of Puritanism sit in Plato’s cave, describing not reality but those shadows of reality which are ‘characters’ and stereotypes."
(Toward a Definition of Puritanism - Brian H. Cosby)

I wonder if it could just be a general fear of not wanting to expose our heroes as mere men? Or the movement like our present church climate; varied on almost all fronts.

 

[ZackF]

A couple thoughts...

Firstly, trained and consistent Protestants are rightly leery of a RC-like "Unanimous Consent of the Fathers" version for Puritans and Non-Conformists. Any person's, no matter how renowned, arguments must meet the test of Scripture and sound reason as "...we can do no other." Divines of old (an new) differ on some important things, like baptism, yet most sober mind Christians don't write them out of Christianity even though fellowship is limited.

Secondly, computer or even manual indices searches are tools not a conclusions. They do not necessarily reveal contexts necessary for understanding an author's position on a thing. An informed summary, let alone analysis, is not always possible immediately after a word search.

 

[davejonescue]

A couple thoughts...

Firstly, trained and consistent Protestants are rightly leery of a RC-like "Unanimous Consent of the Fathers" version for Puritans and Non-Conformists. Any person's, no matter how renowned, arguments must meet the test of Scripture and sound reason as "...we can do no other." Divines of old (an new) differ on some important things, like baptism, yet most sober mind Christians don't write them out of Christianity even though fellowship is limited.

Secondly, computer or even manual indices searches are tools not a conclusions. They do not necessarily reveal contexts necessary for understanding an author's position on a thing. An informed summary, let alone analysis, is not always possible immediately after a word search.

But they do reveal the authors position on a thing, and in their own words, not filtered by the opinions or the conclusions others have came to of what those words may mean.

 

[LittleFaith]

But they do reveal the authors position on a thing, and in their own words, not filtered by the opinions or the conclusions others have came to of what those words may mean.

No - just filtered by the presuppositions and hermeneutics which the "objective" reader brings to the bare text.

 

[davejonescue]

No - just filtered by the presuppositions and hermeneutics which the "objective" reader brings to the bare text.

I dont think so. Not to the degree that one needs a Ph.D in Puritan Studies to understand what they are trying to convey in their writings. Since the results are Puritans writing themselves, and not people writing of Puritans, they are fully able to explain for themselves their justification for their positions in their own writings.

If we read an author today, that denies the Trinity, do we need to understand their life story to conclude that a denial of the Trinity is error? Will anything in that life story turn that error to orthodoxy?

 

[TheInquirer]

Regarding Puritan Search, the tool is both new and has technological barriers to run. I just went to the site and it required me to download a zip file. As someone who owned and operated a very large software download site in the past, there are all kinds of trust and tech hurdles to overcome with that approach.

 

[davejonescue]

Regarding Puritan Search, the tool is both new and has technological barriers to run. I just went to the site and it required me to download a zip file. As someone who owned and operated a very large software download site in the past, there are all kinds of trust and tech hurdles to overcome with that approach.

That is odd. I dont really see any. There doesnt seem any more trust issues with downloading a zip, as opposed to an exe. As far as "tech hurdles," it is mainly just making sure Java is installed on your computer, if not natively; and once the Zip is downloaded, running it. If one supposes Christians would go through all that work to create something like this, only for it to be known as a virus scam, there is nothing anybody can do about that. But you are right, it is still relatively new. Just got to give it time to grow.

But I am curious. Working in tech, what do you think would be the best way to deliver a file tht is 3Gs+

 

[TylerRay]

That is odd. I dont really see any. There doesnt seem any more trust issues with downloading a zip, as opposed to an exe. As far as "tech hurdles," it is mainly just making sure Java is installed on your computer, if not natively; and once the Zip is downloaded, running it. If one supposes Christians would go through all that work to create something like this, only for it to be known as a virus scam, there is nothing anybody can do about that. But you are right, it is still relatively new. Just got to give it time to grow.

But I am curious. Working in tech, what do you think would be the best way to deliver a file tht is 3Gs+

Hey. brother. I just downloaded it and am starting to use it now. I honestly think that the biggest reasons that most people won't like it are UX and tech hurdle related. These thoughts are purely from a user experience perspective (I'm a frontend developer), and not personal complaints.

1. Big zip file. My download failed twice.
2. Having to open a README to figure out how to use it--most people ignore READMEs and will be lost.
3. The first thing the README tells me to do is to open command prompt. That's going to be intimidating for most people.
4. I have to download JAVA. Most people have no idea what they're downloading.
5. I can only run the shortcut that opens the app from within the folder it came in--meaning, I have to navigate to a folder before opening it, and I can't pin it to my task bar.

I'm enjoying the software, and I hope to get lots of good use out of it. I really appreciate the work y'all have put into it. But don't expect it to catch on for most people until they can just download an executable, run it, have a shortcut placed on their desktops.

 

[davejonescue]

Hey. brother. I just downloaded it and am starting to use it now. I honestly think that the biggest reasons that most people won't like it are UX and tech hurdle related. These thoughts are purely from a user experience perspective (I'm a frontend developer), and not personal complaints.

1. Big zip file. My download failed twice.
2. Having to open a README to figure out how to use it--most people ignore READMEs and will be lost.
3. The first thing the README tells me to do is to open command prompt. That's going to be intimidating for most people.
4. I have to download JAVA. Most people have no idea what they're downloading.
5. I can only run the shortcut that opens the app from within the folder it came in--meaning, I have to navigate to a folder before opening it, and I can't pin it to my task bar.

I'm enjoying the software, and I hope to get lots of good use out of it. I really appreciate the work y'all have put into it. But don't expect it to catch on for most people until they can just download an executable, run it, have a shortcut placed on their desktops.

What would be your best advice for getting that done? Would a techie know how to do all of that. And if so, how much $$$ do you think we are talking. I know I have seen some exe.'s that if you dont have a needed program, like NET or something, it automatically searches for it and downloads and installs it for you with your permission. But after seeing the program do you think it could be remedied, and if so, as a Christian techie, do you recommend anybody I could work with? I live in a small town TX, so my local options are pretty slim.

 

[TylerRay]

What would be your best advice for getting that done? Would a techie know how to do all of that. And if so, how much $$$ do you think we are talking. I know I have seen some exe.'s that if you dont have a needed program, like NET or something, it automatically searches for it and downloads and installs it for you with your permission. But after seeing the program do you think it could be remedied, and if so, as a Christian techie, do you recommend anybody I could work with? I live in a small town TX, so my local options are pretty slim.

Sorry, borther, no idea off the top of my head. I'm a junior frontend guy, working exclusively with web apps. I have no experience with native development.

 

[davejonescue]

Regarding Puritan Search, the tool is both new and has technological barriers to run. I just went to the site and it required me to download a zip file. As someone who owned and operated a very large software download site in the past, there are all kinds of trust and tech hurdles to overcome with that approach.

Hey. brother. I just downloaded it and am starting to use it now. I honestly think that the biggest reasons that most people won't like it are UX and tech hurdle related. These thoughts are purely from a user experience perspective (I'm a frontend developer), and not personal complaints.

1. Big zip file. My download failed twice.
2. Having to open a README to figure out how to use it--most people ignore READMEs and will be lost.
3. The first thing the README tells me to do is to open command prompt. That's going to be intimidating for most people.
4. I have to download JAVA. Most people have no idea what they're downloading.
5. I can only run the shortcut that opens the app from within the folder it came in--meaning, I have to navigate to a folder before opening it, and I can't pin it to my task bar.

I'm enjoying the software, and I hope to get lots of good use out of it. I really appreciate the work y'all have put into it. But don't expect it to catch on for most people until they can just download an executable, run it, have a shortcut placed on their desktops.


Tyler Ray

TheInquirer, do you have the expertise to get this up to being user friendly as far as downloading goes? Please let me know if so, would love to work something out if possible.

 

[TylerRay]

Actually, now that I think of it, I might be able to loop you into a network of Reformed developers that could help move things forward. PM me your email address.

 

[davejonescue]

Sorry, borther, no idea off the top of my head. I'm a junior frontend guy, working exclusively with web apps. I have no experience with native development.

No problem. You helped out tons by just properly diagnosing it for me. With this list whatever happens, its a good step in the right direction.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I agree with your thoughts. There is too much to life for us humans to learn. Life is so complex. For most of us, it is easy to speak with generalities while being largely uninformed. Depending on the author I read, I see much diversity from one to the next, and quite a few things I read from reputable theologians can be quite puzzling.

My general interpretation of life has been that the more I learn and grow, the more I know how pathetic I am in every way. As a kid, I thought adult life would be much greater than it actually is.

 

[PeterR]

I downloaded this, and you can get an HTML page for each of the books containing the entire text by going to the "files" folder once you have unzipped the download. In that regard it doesn't seem particularly complicated.

Because of my own interest, I looked at "A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace" by John Ball. I recently edited the EEBO transcription of Page 204 myself at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:A_Treatise_of_the_Covenant_of_Grace_(John_Ball).djvu/216 . At this stage the transcription does not update spelling - that may come later in a completely separate set of pages, but Wikisource requires an accurate transcription of the original before an edited one may be started on their site.

Comparing with your HTML file, I see that one of the instances of the word "common" on this page (in the second paragraph) has been replaced by "commandment" in your file. May your software have introduced some random errors?

Also your file does not have the italics which were present in the EEBO text at https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A30345.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Furthermore I notice that the spelling "favour", which continues to be the normal spelling in standard English, has been converted to the American "favor" in your text.

It will be interesting to see how this project develops. It seems useful to have the vast number of Puritan materials selected out of the even vaster wider EEBO corpus.

 

[davejonescue]

I downloaded this, and you can get an HTML page for each of the books containing the entire text by going to the "files" folder once you have unzipped the download. In that regard it doesn't seem particularly complicated.

I dont find it complicated either. As I look at it, I dont think there is going to be a way to counter the file size; it is going to be over 1G regardless if it is a Zip or EXE. And thinking about it, we also did it this way so people could simply (theoretically) copy and paste the entire folder onto Flash-Drives to take it with them in a portable way (with Java Portable.) And so missionaries could use in the field and hand out to the Pastors they are training or mentoring. To me it really seems like an easy process.

1. Download the Zip.
2. Extract the Zip
3. Open the Folder and Find the EXE for your OS.

I will see what the price is to try and package it all together, but I have a feeling it will be steep. Most likely I will leave how it is and just do a quick tutorial video of the whole 3 step process. The size is no different than downloading an OS, or other programs of similar size.

Also, it is true you can get the HTML's that way, but we also have a site that lets you download the entire corpus in HTML, DOCX, PDF, and EPUB https://sites.google.com/view/project-puritas/home Logan West in his spare time looks for Puritan and Reformed works from TCP to add to the corpus, and updates words as he can, but the non-Puritan & non-Non-Conformist authors have been omitted from Puritan Search. So you will actually find in the PP's Corpus, about 400-500 works that are not in Puritan Search, touching more on the broadly Reformed as opposed to a concentration on the former. After I am done with Greenhams Works, I may have to take a minute and see if there are Puritans & Non-Conformists we missed; just really investing in checking as many references as I can. Simply because I dont know how long TCP is going to be up; and we also look at this Corpus as a way of preserving these texts through as much proliferation as we can on the Web. I have tried asking around for names, but with little response. So to the books it is, lol.

 

[davejonescue]

Went ahead and updated the site with an install tutorial. Hopefully this may clear things up for future users who may not be as tech savvy.

Install.mkv

drive.google.com

 

[Logan]

Comparing with your HTML file, I see that one of the instances of the word "common" on this page (in the second paragraph) has been replaced by "commandment" in your file. May your software have introduced some random errors?

I looked but I don't see what you are referring to. "Common" appears where appropriate, as does "commandment".

Also your file does not have the italics which were present in the EEBO text at https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A30345.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

They are there in the underlying html, but you need the EEBO .css style file.

Furthermore I notice that the spelling "favour", which continues to be the normal spelling in standard English, has been converted to the American "favor" in your text.

Surprisingly (perhaps), during that period both forms of the spelling were used. I had to pick one for consistency across all the files and in this case the chef's choice was the simpler (and arguably more common) spelling.

 

[davejonescue]

I downloaded this, and you can get an HTML page for each of the books containing the entire text by going to the "files" folder once you have unzipped the download. In that regard it doesn't seem particularly complicated.

Because of my own interest, I looked at "A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace" by John Ball. I recently edited the EEBO transcription of Page 204 myself at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:A_Treatise_of_the_Covenant_of_Grace_(John_Ball).djvu/216 . At this stage the transcription does not update spelling - that may come later in a completely separate set of pages, but Wikisource requires an accurate transcription of the original before an edited one may be started on their site.

Comparing with your HTML file, I see that one of the instances of the word "common" on this page (in the second paragraph) has been replaced by "commandment" in your file. May your software have introduced some random errors?

Also your file does not have the italics which were present in the EEBO text at https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A30345.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Furthermore I notice that the spelling "favour", which continues to be the normal spelling in standard English, has been converted to the American "favor" in your text.

It will be interesting to see how this project develops. It seems useful to have the vast number of Puritan materials selected out of the even vaster wider EEBO corpus.

You are correct. And this is hardly reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. In the EEBO-TCP text, "common" there was rendered "comman." These are the texts in which we worked upon. You have to understand, we were dealing with around 649,000 pages of text, or 324,000,000 words. What ever few errors were possibly introduced in the correction process are extremely minimal to the overall output. For instance, if you go to EEBO-TCP website, do a search of "comman," you will find about 600 instances within the entire 60,000 work corpus. Within those 600 instances, the overwhelming majority do correlate to commandment. So the corrective process had to choose between "common" or "commandment."

This is why in the text, in all the text for Puritan Search, especially with the scholarly community in mind; a direct link has been provided within each work directly linked back to the work in TCP. For scholarly work, Puritan Search serves as the base board to gather and confine Puritans & Non-Conformists to a single search proximity. So that, instead of having to weigh through 1,000's of illegitimate results, say in TCP; a query can be ran within the strict confines of Puritansim and Non-Conformity. All scholars will have to record the text as it is found in TCP anyway, as it is the acceptable source of citation. If any erroneous discrepancy in the text exists; it will be found there.

Trying to preserve the italics in a the search query is superfluous in my opinion. Especially given what the possibilities are with this software. Project Puritas has linked the files of each work in separate formats that preserve the italics; for those wishing to use as a base for future published works (which they will have to compare to facsimiles) but for searching, it is not necessary. Is Puritan Search perfect? No. Is EEBO-TCP perfect? No. But given that without such, 99% of these texts are merely unsearchable facsimiles sitting in a Proquest subscription; cut off from a majority of Christians is the greater tragedy.

All of us at Project Puritas would love to see some wealthy or affluent or resourceful Christian take what we have done with Puritan Search and create it into an even better program, with greater functionality. But until then, this is what we have; and it is pretty much finished. People can utilize it or not; and I mean that in the most humble way possible. For us at Project Puritas, we have all pretty much moved on to other things. We have given full warning on the website that the software is not perfect. It kinda is what it is; and we have given what we can to the best of our abilities. Some people would rather spend their time scouring through 100's of PDF's while one can now find more in 10 seconds than they can in 10 weeks with that method. But there is nothing we can do about that. It is only our gift to the Church and to the Puritan community; for Gods glory alone. It is left in his hands to either prosper, or fail.

Thank you for pointing that out though. Especially because it magnifies the reality that Puritan Search is only a tool. Until, and if ever, the day comes that the entire Puritan corpus has been inerrently typed out and formatted in such a way that surety can rest solely on the/a tool alone; caution will need to be used in what ever presently improves our research; including this software. Puritan Search is only a step forward...it is not the destination. The destination is the proliferation of Puritan literature, to the world, free of charge.