Subject: Re: tc-list Quality of fragment photos

From: "Thomas J. Kraus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:56:46 +0200

> Date:          Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:47:16 +0200
> From:          Wieland Willker <[email-masked]>
> To:            [email-masked]
> Subject:       tc-list Quality of fragment photos
> Reply-to:      [email-masked]

On Wednesday, 12 Aug 1998 13:47:16 +0200 Wieland Willer wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> today I looked through one of C.P. Thiede's books about the dating of
> the Magdalen Mt papyrus. One can have different opinions about his
> dating, but he has the best photos I have ever seen of a papyrus
> fragment.
> I think, with these new(?) photographic tools he used one can make a lot
> more out of some fragments.
> For example the Egerton gospel, if I remember correctly it was published
> in 1935. I would love to see a "Thiede" photo of fragment 2 verso. This
> otherwise unknown parable/miracle is my personal obsession. :-)
> The photos of the recently published new Egerton fragment (Papyrus Koeln
> 255) are also not very thrilling.
> Will there ever be any new photos?
> 
> Best wishes
>     Wieland
> 
> 
Dear Wieland,
sorry on the delay on responding to your inquiry, but I just recently 
arrrived at work again after having been stuck on several airports in the 
world because of an airline strike.
Unfortunately,  I do not agree with you about the quality of the photos 
contained in Thiede´s and D´Ancona´s "popular bestseller" about the 
Magdalen fragments. Despite the requested and among papyrologists and 
palaeographers undisputed method of publishing a papyrus, the tiny Qumran 
fragment 7Q5 as well as the Magdalen fragments are reproduced with a deep 
blue background. But only a white background enables the observer to 
distinguish between holes in a papyrus and ink blots. Dark backgrounds 
then make such an observation impossible. The same pseudo-scientific 
approach is revealed by putting thick red lines over the disputed letters 
in order to establish a sincere reading. From a palaeographical view this 
is nonsense: the red writing laid over the original letter-traces totally 
covers them, and they do not represent any hand of early origin which 
could be compared with the writing on the papyri, but only Thiede´s own 
handwriting. This should definitely not be regarded as a model of how to 
reproduce papyri. See on the edition of a papyrus, for instance: E. G. 
Turner, Greek Papyri. An Introduction (2nd ed.; Oxford 1980) 54-73.
But what´s of more interest for you, Wieland, are the Egerton frgs. and 
how to get a grip on good quality pictures of them. The best way, I think, 
is to write directly to the British Museum in London and the 
"Papyrussammlung der Uninversität Köln" 
(http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/links.html)
or, what you may have already found, you´ll find any picture in the 
literature given under the following 
(http://www.teleport.com/~cabern/andrew/primary/grospels.html)
I hope that you´ll find what you´re looking for.
Best wishes,
Thomas

Universität Regensburg
Kath.-theol. Fakultät
Universitätsstr. 31
D-93053 Regensburg

Tel. + 49 941 943 36 90
Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86
[email-masked]

---

From: "Mark Goodacre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:47:49 GMT

On  9 Sep 98 at 8:56, Thomas J. Kraus wrote:

> . . . . what you may have
> already found, you´ll find any picture in the literature given under the
> following (http://www.teleport.com/~cabern/andrew/primary/grospels.html)

A quick correction: the URL is:

http://www.teleport.com/~cabern/andrew/primary/gospels.html

Mark
--------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre       mailto:[email-masked]
  Dept of Theology                Tel: +44 (0)121 414 7512
  University of Birmingham      Fax: +44 (0)121 414 6866
  Birmingham  B15 2TT
  United Kingdom

Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
World Without Q: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q

---

From: "Wieland Willker" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Sep 1998 13:02:00 -0000

> contained in Thiede=B4s and D=B4Ancona=B4s "popular bestseller" about the 
> distinguish between holes in a papyrus and ink blots. 

Hallo Thomas, 

you are right on everything. 
What I meant was just the quality of the photography ITSELF not its presentation (and manipulation). 
About requesting photos from the British Museum, I have not much hope...

Best wishes
    Wieland

-----
Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/tc-list/?start=4489
Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/