Re: tc-list Quality of fragment photos
> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:47:16 +0200
> From: Wieland Willker <willker@...-bremen.de>
> To: tc-list@...
> Subject: tc-list Quality of fragment photos
> Reply-to: tc-list@...
On Wednesday, 12 Aug 1998 13:47:16 +0200 Wieland Willer wrote:
> 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
> 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
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"
or, what you may have already found, you´ll find any picture in the
literature given under the following
I hope that you´ll find what you´re looking for.
Tel. + 49 941 943 36 90
Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86
- On 9 Sep 98 at 8:56, Thomas J. Kraus wrote:
> . . . . what you may haveA quick correction: the URL is:
> already found, you´ll find any picture in the literature given under the
> following (http://www.teleport.com/~cabern/andrew/primary/grospels.html)
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology Tel: +44 (0)121 414 7512
University of Birmingham Fax: +44 (0)121 414 6866
Birmingham B15 2TT
World Without Q: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q
> Unfortunately, I do not agree with you about the quality of the photosHallo Thomas,
> contained in Thiede=B4s and D=B4Ancona=B4s "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.
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...
Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/tc-list/?start=4489
Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/