PRC Archives – 1967 Seminary Catalog

Among the items Rev.Gise Van Baren recently gave to the PRC archives was a manila envelope containing various PRC Seminary programs and catalogs. And one of the first complete catalogs was one authorized by the PRC Synod of 1966 and published on March 1, 1967 (I do love it when special publications are dated so carefully! That is crucial to the archiving process. Please keep that in mind, churches and societies!).

1967 PRC Sem Catalog

This catalog is so complete it even includes a “Table of Contents”:

  • Description of the Seminary
  • Faculty
  • Former Professors
  • Admission of students
  • Curriculum
  • Calendar
  • Description of courses
  • Consitution of the Theological School (not the same as the Consitution of the Theological School Committee – cf. the link at the bottom of this Seminary website page)

In the “description” part is found this significant paragraph:

A complete course in all the branches of theology is offered. As appears from the catalogue, the emphasis in the curriculum is on Dogmatics and Exegesis. This is not without good reason. Dogmatics is important inasmuch as all the life of the Church flows out of sound doctrine and a clear and concise understanding of the faith ‘once delivered to the saints.’ Sound and effective preaching is preaching of the truth. But Exegesis is no less important inasmuch as there can be no Dogmatics except the truth be gleaned from Holy Writ. The strength of the Church of Christ is her preaching; and the strength of her preaching is exegesis since the Word of God alone must form the content of all the preaching of the gospel.

A good reminder of what our Seminary continues to emphasize and why our curriculum has not fundamentally changed in the nearly 50 years since this was published. In fact, this exact paragraph remains in our current Seminary catalog.

I thought you might also enjoy this page of the faculty and former professors.

1967 PRC Sem Catalog-2

Archiving is always interesting and exciting work. We are grateful for all the items we receive from our ministers and from our members. Be sure to contact the Seminary if you have any items of interest for our denominational archives. We appreciate every donation!

Where Did Times New Roman Come From? | NY Public Library

Where Did Times New Roman Come From? | The New York Public Library.

London Times-new roman font-1932I found this recent post from the blog of the NY Public Library to be fascinating (posted Dec.9, 2014). Have you ever given thought to why and when the Times Roman font became revised? Do you know how far back the “Roman” type goes?

Perhaps not, but the answer is worth reading about if you appreciate comfort to the eyes when you read, whether it be newspaper, book – or tablet.

I don’t like to admit it, but I did not realize the “new” part goes all the way back to 1932, nor that that “Times” part of the font referred to a newspaper – and not in the U.S. either!

There’s enough interesting print history to satisfy all here. I hope you do “read all about it”. You will benefit greatly. And the bonus is some great pictures, as well as a link to NYPL’s rare book section.

This post was done by Meredith Mann, Rare Book Division of the NY Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building.

If you open up your word processing software and start typing, chances are you’re looking at Times New Roman. It’s so ubiquitous that we take it for granted, but just like Spider-Man orWolverine, this super-typeface has its own origin story.

You might be surprised to learn that Times New Roman began as a challenge, when esteemed type designer Stanley Morison criticized London’s newspaper The Times for being out-of-touch with modern typographical trends. SoThe Times asked him to create something better. Morison enlisted the help of draftsman Victor Lardent and began conceptualizing a new typeface with two goals in mind: efficiency—maximizing the amount of type that would fit on a line and thus on a page—and readability. Morison wanted any printing in his typeface to be economical, a necessity in the newspaper business, but he also wanted the process of reading to be easy on the eye.

And here’s an interesting paragraph about how this font found its way into books:

In 1932, The Times specifically noted that their new typeface was not intended for books: “It is a newspaper type—and hardly a book type—for it is strictly appointed for use in short lines—i.e., in columns.” They later developed a wider version adapted to fit a book’s longer lines of text. This idea that the use of a typeface affects its form struck me as very relevant to today’s world of e-book publishing and web-based content. Indeed, Times New Roman’s chief competitors these days are Arial and Calibri, two typefaces whose lack of serifs makes them easier to read on a screen, according to many. But at 82 years old, Times New Roman is still going strong and proving that our humblest word processing friends have some pretty historic beginnings.