OXYRHYNCHUS WATCH: National Geographic has an article (via Bible and Interpretation News) on the use of the imaging techniques reported by the Independent:

Papyrus Reveals New Clues to Ancient World
James Owen
for National Geographic News
April 25, 2005

Classical Greek and Roman literature is being read for the first time in 2,000 years thanks to new technology. The previously illegible texts are among a hoard of papyrus manuscripts. Scholars say the rediscovered writings will provide a fascinating new window into the ancient world.

[...]

They appear to have interviewed Dirk Obbink:

Obbink says the research should add to the body of known work of standard classical authors such as Homer and Sophocles, as well as that of lesser known writers "who didn't survive either through accident of time or because they weren't as popular."

Sophocles wrote 120 plays, but only seven survived, among them Oedipus Rex and Antigone. "We have samples of all the rest in these papyrus fragments," Obbink said. "We're filling in the gaps incrementally. You're never going to get each and every word of 120 plays, but you will get a slice of what was available during the centuries when these rubbish mounds built up."

The fragments may also shed new light on texts that have survived only by being repeatedly copied over thousands of years. "These older [papyrus] texts can be more accurate, or preserve completely new readings," Obbink said.

The claims are not as striking as in the Independent article, but they still indicate that some interesting things have been turning up. And it looks as though my hopes regarding the Old Testament pseudepigrapha are not entirely without basis:

Similarly, Biblical scholars can expect valuable new material to emerge as some gospels that weren't included in the New Testament didn't survive. "The texts that are in the Bible were selected out of a much larger body of work that once circulated," Obbink said. "We have samples of that material here."

However, even National Geographic can't publish an article on biblical studies without including an embarrassing error:

The latest volume includes details of fragments showing third- and fourth-century versions of the Book of Revelations. Intriguingly, the number assigned to "the Beast" of Revelations isn't the usual 666, but 616.

The Book of "Revelations." Sigh. Makes you wonder how many other mistakes we don't know about are in the article, doesn't it?

UPDATE: David Meadows notes an article in the New York Sun ("A 'Second Renaissance'? Well, Maybe a Little One") by Gary Shapiro which puts the whole story in perspective and seems to clear up much of the confusion. It has some overlap with the National Geographic article and even includes the Book of "Revelations" mistake. I'm not sure if this means one is using the other or both are relying on e-mails or a press release from Dr. Obbink. But I doubt he would have made the error.

UPDATE: Over at Ralph, Ed Cook discusses the number 616 in the Oxyrhynchus manuscript of Revelation mentioned above.

UPDATE: Mark Goodacre has more.