Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2024 October 5
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 4 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 6 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
October 5
[edit]pAmherst 63 full transcription
[edit]Kister 2019[1] has a few lines of papyrus Amherst 63 in plain square script, is there similar somewhere for the whole document? I can't find one in any script. Temerarius (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- (from the source's sources) If Steiner and Nims 2017 (free academia.edu account required) doesn't have what you're looking for, OCLC 1025256342 might be the other option (it only turned up in academic libraries for my location, but you can often just uh walk in there if you have a backpack). I looked into some of the older sources the source cites: Steiner 1983 doesn't have it; doi:10.1086/370721 might, but University of Chicago does not grant TWL access to that eighty-year-old paper, as if anyone who had anything to do with the research or original publication were still alive to profit from it. Got no results from either the British Museum or the JP Morgan Museum, each of which were said by one source or another to house the physical document. Folly Mox (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks! I'll take a look.
- Temerarius (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Steiner does say there are likely careless errors in the first column, the transliterated Demotic. I hope his three-column attempt isn't the last. I just downloaded Van der Toorn's "Becoming Diaspora Jews" and the fact there's only a translation there seems wrong somehow, either cocky or the opposite. Like why go to all the trouble of doing all the steps yourself then fail to show your work? Steiner's is invaluable, but fallible. He's got a very "trust me" tone, but makes some far-flung extractions over simpler solutions. Anyways, I'll be poring over it for some time, and I really appreciate you going to the effort to help me. The two latter options weren't available to me.
- Temerarius (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Temerarius, it turns out I'm dumb and missed the obvious step of checking whether Bowman's 1944 publication was shared with Jstor by University of Chicago Press. Of course it had been, and JSTOR 542994 does reproduce portions of the text in a script similar to the one used by the source you originally posted here. TWL does grant access to the paper via Jstor.As to Karel van der Toorn's 2018 book length treatment published by Ugarit-Verlag, that seems like it would be a great source to use for the article, but yeah Worldcat showed availability only in libraries at least 1300km away from me, and the two online booksellers I saw have it in stock were asking nearly $200 for a copy. The publisher's website was also malconfigured and wouldn't serve me the page about the book.I suppose as a last ditch effort, you might be able to email contact van der Toorn, explaining that you're an independent scholar working on the Wikipedia article about the subject of their recent book, but aren't able to access it to use it as a source. They may be willing to share sections of their author's proof with you (most academics are significantly more interested in sharing their research than in their publisher profiting from it). (I have contacted individual academics with research questions before, although not since grad school. Most are pretty busy.)That said, van der Toorn's own doi:10.1515/zaw-2016-0037 (2017, De Gruyter; TWL yes) states that their own
work on papyrus Amherst 63 is based on the Chicago photographs of 1901
, so obviously direct inspection of this historical document has been difficult for everyone. Folly Mox (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)- Maybe I will email the professor! Thanks.
- Is there a way to download the high resolution at the Morgan library's site? Other than pixel-perfect is asking for a headache. I'd screenshot and stitch but there's no view at 100% button. https://www.themorgan.org/manuscript/318272
- Temerarius (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- This link resolves the 3.2MP version. Unsure if they have a higher resolution somewhere; you might be able to use photo manipulation to help the glyphs stand out better from the papyrus ground. Folly Mox (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Click 'zoom' and it goes bigger with no jpg download. But it looks like it does go to 100% and max out there, after all, so I can pan and stitch. Worth the effort.
- Temerarius (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Re: U Chicago Press, God, it seems my Wikipedia library account was--it says permission denied, I'm not allowed to do that, did not receive a valid oauth response. I used to have access.
- Temerarius (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm able to access University of Chicago Press via TWL, but they're pretty selective about which publications our institutional subscription can access. From a pretty vague test search, it seems like around ⅓ of their content is still locked for us. Folly Mox (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- This link resolves the 3.2MP version. Unsure if they have a higher resolution somewhere; you might be able to use photo manipulation to help the glyphs stand out better from the papyrus ground. Folly Mox (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Temerarius, it turns out I'm dumb and missed the obvious step of checking whether Bowman's 1944 publication was shared with Jstor by University of Chicago Press. Of course it had been, and JSTOR 542994 does reproduce portions of the text in a script similar to the one used by the source you originally posted here. TWL does grant access to the paper via Jstor.As to Karel van der Toorn's 2018 book length treatment published by Ugarit-Verlag, that seems like it would be a great source to use for the article, but yeah Worldcat showed availability only in libraries at least 1300km away from me, and the two online booksellers I saw have it in stock were asking nearly $200 for a copy. The publisher's website was also malconfigured and wouldn't serve me the page about the book.I suppose as a last ditch effort, you might be able to email contact van der Toorn, explaining that you're an independent scholar working on the Wikipedia article about the subject of their recent book, but aren't able to access it to use it as a source. They may be willing to share sections of their author's proof with you (most academics are significantly more interested in sharing their research than in their publisher profiting from it). (I have contacted individual academics with research questions before, although not since grad school. Most are pretty busy.)That said, van der Toorn's own doi:10.1515/zaw-2016-0037 (2017, De Gruyter; TWL yes) states that their own
- Richard C. Steiner's writings are downloadable from https://repository.yu.edu/ , but I'm not sure if there's an overall listing page. I actually have a PDF of Steiner and Nims 1983 on my hard drive, but I didn't make the connection with the alphanumeric reference "pAmherst 63" until Steiner's name was mentioned... AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, he wrote a lot of papers. Thanks for linking, there's some stuff you won't find anywhere.
- Temerarius (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Kister, Menahem (2019-09-09). "Psalm 20 and Papyrus Amherst 63: A Window to the Dynamic Nature of Poetic Texts". Vetus Testamentum. 70 (3). Brill: 426–457. doi:10.1163/15685330-12341400. ISSN 0042-4935.