Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

tc-list Responses on Zacharias

Expand Messages
  • robert s. morse
    My hearty thanks to Peter Head and Ulrich Schmid for the helpful information, which I will check out. My authority for Zacharias attributing the harmony to
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 31, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      My hearty thanks to Peter Head and Ulrich Schmid for the helpful
      information, which I will check out. My authority for Zacharias
      attributing the harmony to Ammonius was the Catholic Encyclopedia of
      1912, xv:743, not exactly up to date. There is also some reference to
      Ammonius in the introduction to the text in Migne (only scanned it).
      Fulgensis seems a lot more likely, which I have on order.

      Best regards,

      Bob M.
    • D.R. Edwards
      Greetings to all - I still hope you have occasional amateur hours. In reading Mack s Who Wrote the New Testament, he discusses (p. 9, I believe) Thiede s
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Greetings to all - I still hope you have occasional amateur hours.

        In reading Mack's "Who Wrote the New Testament," he discusses (p. 9, I
        believe) Thiede's views with regard to the Magdalen Fragments. According to
        Mack, one of the reasons Thiede dated the fragments so early is that they
        are written in uncial, which went out of style in the mid-first century CE.
        Mack counters with the statement that uncials could have been used as late
        as 85 CE, which is more-or-less the midpoint of dates that are commonly
        suggested for the composition of Matthew.

        My confusion stems from my idea that uncial script, properly speaking,
        consists of rounded letters and has some other orthographic characteristics
        that distinguish it from the earlier block script. I was also under the
        impression that this change to uncial script didn't occur until late in the
        2d century CE.

        Needless to say, I'm hopelessly confused. I'd be very grateful if someone
        could help me to better understand Mack's comments in the context of the
        script.

        D. Edwards
      • Jack Kilmon
        I was under the impression that Thiede stretched for the early date not becuse of the uncial script but a zeitschrift script that was used in Herodian times.
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 1, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          I was under the impression that Thiede stretched for the early date
          not becuse of the uncial script but a zeitschrift script that was used
          in Herodian times.

          Jack

          "D.R. Edwards" wrote:

          > Greetings to all - I still hope you have occasional amateur hours.
          >
          > In reading Mack's "Who Wrote the New Testament," he discusses (p. 9, I
          > believe) Thiede's views with regard to the Magdalen Fragments. According to
          > Mack, one of the reasons Thiede dated the fragments so early is that they
          > are written in uncial, which went out of style in the mid-first century CE.
          > Mack counters with the statement that uncials could have been used as late
          > as 85 CE, which is more-or-less the midpoint of dates that are commonly
          > suggested for the composition of Matthew.
          >
          > My confusion stems from my idea that uncial script, properly speaking,
          > consists of rounded letters and has some other orthographic characteristics
          > that distinguish it from the earlier block script. I was also under the
          > impression that this change to uncial script didn't occur until late in the
          > 2d century CE.
          >
          > Needless to say, I'm hopelessly confused. I'd be very grateful if someone
          > could help me to better understand Mack's comments in the context of the
          > script.
          >
          > D. Edwards
        • Wieland Willker
          ... you mean: Zierschrift (scrolled, ornate) ? Best wishes Wieland ... willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 2, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            > not becuse of the uncial script but a zeitschrift script that was used
            > in Herodian times.

            you mean: Zierschrift (scrolled, ornate) ?

            Best wishes
            Wieland
            --------------------
            willker@...-bremen.de
            http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... Yupper. I was thinking zierstil and typed zietschrift (thinking of the journal)...must have posted before my second cup of coffee :) Jack --
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 2, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Wieland Willker wrote:
              >
              > > not becuse of the uncial script but a zeitschrift script that was used
              > > in Herodian times.
              >
              > you mean: Zierschrift (scrolled, ornate) ?

              Yupper. I was thinking zierstil and typed zietschrift
              (thinking of the journal)...must have posted before my
              second cup of coffee :)

              Jack

              --
              ______________________________________________

              taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

              Jack Kilmon
              jkilmon@...

              http://www.historian.net
            • Professor L.W. Hurtado
              In response to D. Edwards query: I can t speak to Mack s book, Who Wrote the NT?, except to note that neither textual criticism nor palaeography is a topic on
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 6, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                In response to D. Edwards' query:
                I can't speak to Mack's book, Who Wrote the NT?, except to note
                that neither textual criticism nor palaeography is a topic on which
                he has established research credentials. It looks, however, like
                either Mack has given a confused account of Thiede's views, or you
                have mis-remembered Mack!
                1) "Uncial" is a term properly pertaining to a style of Latin writing.
                But NT text critics have persisted in using it, though "majuscule"
                would be the proper term to use, in contrast to the later ascendant
                "minuscule" or "cursive" handwriting of Greek mss from the late 8th
                cent CE. Majuscule/uncial writing was characteristic all through
                the earliest Christian centuries, and no shift away from this writing
                style was made in the 2nd cent.
                2) Thiede's case has to do with the particular shape of particular
                Greek letters. It's not a matter of "uncial" but of the particular
                shape of particular "uncial" letters, which, he argues, indicates a
                dating in the lst cent. He has been shown to be methodologically
                inept in this argument by competent palaeographers in the relevant
                scholarly journals.
                (For an introduction to Greek mss and palaeography, see B. M.
                Metzger, _Manuscripts of the Greek Bible_ (Oxford Univ. press,
                1981).
                Larry Hurtado
                L. W. Hurtado
                University of Edinburgh,
                New College
                Mound Place
                Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
                Phone: 0131-650-8920
                Fax: 0131-650-6579
                E-mail: L.Hurtado@...
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... Although Uncial did come about as a calligraphic form of monumental Latin, isn t it true that the rounded angles of Greek majuscule were its inspiration?
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 6, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote:

                  > 1) "Uncial" is a term properly pertaining to a style of Latin writing.
                  > But NT text critics have persisted in using it, though "majuscule"
                  > would be the proper term to use, in contrast to the later ascendant
                  > "minuscule" or "cursive" handwriting of Greek mss from the late 8th
                  > cent CE. Majuscule/uncial writing was characteristic all through
                  > the earliest Christian centuries, and no shift away from this writing
                  > style was made in the 2nd cent.

                  Although Uncial did come about as a calligraphic form of monumental
                  Latin, isn't it true that the rounded angles of Greek majuscule
                  were its inspiration? "Uncial" has been used as a term for
                  book hand Greek by every scholar I can think of, including
                  Metzger, as far back as the science goes in publications. I have
                  even seen it applied to Coptic by Irigoin and Turner. If such is
                  the case, isn't usage the determination of what is proper?

                  I cannot find my copy right now, but what does Hatch say about
                  this in his "Origin and Meaning of the term Uncial" in Classical
                  Philology 30, 1935?


                  > 2) Thiede's case has to do with the particular shape of particular
                  > Greek letters. It's not a matter of "uncial" but of the particular
                  > shape of particular "uncial" letters, which, he argues, indicates a
                  > dating in the lst cent. He has been shown to be methodologically
                  > inept in this argument by competent palaeographers in the relevant
                  > scholarly journals.
                  > (For an introduction to Greek mss and palaeography, see B. M.
                  > Metzger, _Manuscripts of the Greek Bible_ (Oxford Univ. press,

                  Dr. Metzger goes on to explain how the zierstil style continued
                  into the 2nd and even the 3rd centuries. Surely Thiede knew
                  this.

                  Jack
                  --
                  ______________________________________________

                  taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

                  Jack Kilmon
                  jkilmon@...

                  http://www.historian.net
                • Michael Holmes
                  ... The (relatively recent) preference of many for majuscule likely reflects a point of view expressed by D.C. Parker: It has long been habitual to describe
                  Message 8 of 13 , Apr 6, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 08:08 AM 4/6/99 -0500, Jack Kilmon asked:
                    > "Uncial" has been used as a term for
                    >book hand Greek by every scholar I can think of, including
                    >Metzger, as far back as the science goes in publications. I have
                    >even seen it applied to Coptic by Irigoin and Turner. If such is
                    >the case, isn't usage the determination of what is proper?

                    The (relatively recent) preference of many for "majuscule" likely reflects a
                    point of view expressed by D.C. Parker:

                    "It has long been habitual to describe this class of MSS as uncials. The
                    word's use has its origin in Mabillon's interpretation of Jerome's phrase
                    about MSS written _uncialibus litteris_. Whatever the original meaning, a
                    consensus has emerged that the name should be applied only to a particular
                    kind of Latin majuscule. [he references: G. Cavallo and H. Maehler, _Greek
                    Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period A.D. 300-800_ (University of London
                    Institute of Classical Studies Buletin Supplement 47; London:" Institute of
                    Classical Studies, 1987).] The word _majuscule_ should be used to designate
                    the class of Greek hands of which we write. It means "of fair size," as
                    opposed to minuscule, "rather small." (D. C. Parker, "The Majuscule
                    Manuscripts of the New Testament," in Ehrman and Holmes, _The Text of the NT
                    in Contemporary Research_, 22).

                    So "uncial" has gone from being a rather general term to a more precisely
                    defined technical term, and is in the process of being replaced for general
                    use by "majuscule."

                    Mike Holmes
                  • Jack Kilmon
                    ... Parker s usage in Codex Bezae made me think that he was involved in this transition. Because of the common origin and calligraphic similarity between
                    Message 9 of 13 , Apr 6, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Michael Holmes wrote:
                      >
                      > At 08:08 AM 4/6/99 -0500, Jack Kilmon asked:
                      > > "Uncial" has been used as a term for
                      > >book hand Greek by every scholar I can think of, including
                      > >Metzger, as far back as the science goes in publications. I have
                      > >even seen it applied to Coptic by Irigoin and Turner. If such is
                      > >the case, isn't usage the determination of what is proper?
                      >
                      > The (relatively recent) preference of many for "majuscule" likely reflects a
                      > point of view expressed by D.C. Parker:
                      >
                      > "It has long been habitual to describe this class of MSS as uncials. The
                      > word's use has its origin in Mabillon's interpretation of Jerome's phrase
                      > about MSS written _uncialibus litteris_. Whatever the original meaning, a
                      > consensus has emerged that the name should be applied only to a particular
                      > kind of Latin majuscule. [he references: G. Cavallo and H. Maehler, _Greek
                      > Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period A.D. 300-800_ (University of London
                      > Institute of Classical Studies Buletin Supplement 47; London:" Institute of
                      > Classical Studies, 1987).] The word _majuscule_ should be used to designate
                      > the class of Greek hands of which we write. It means "of fair size," as
                      > opposed to minuscule, "rather small." (D. C. Parker, "The Majuscule
                      > Manuscripts of the New Testament," in Ehrman and Holmes, _The Text of the NT
                      > in Contemporary Research_, 22).
                      >
                      > So "uncial" has gone from being a rather general term to a more precisely
                      > defined technical term, and is in the process of being replaced for general
                      > use by "majuscule."

                      Parker's usage in "Codex Bezae" made me think that he was
                      involved in this transition. Because of the common origin
                      and calligraphic similarity between Greek and Latin hands,
                      I have never seen a problem using "uncial" for either but
                      if the majority of scholarship adopts this...hey, I'm
                      flexible. :) Its going to take a long time though.

                      Jack

                      --
                      ______________________________________________

                      taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

                      Jack Kilmon
                      jkilmon@...

                      http://www.historian.net
                    • D.R. Edwards
                      In response to D. Edwards query: I can t speak to Mack s book, Who Wrote the NT?, except to note that neither textual criticism nor palaeography is a topic on
                      Message 10 of 13 , Apr 6, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In response to D. Edwards' query:
                        I can't speak to Mack's book, Who Wrote the NT?, except to note
                        that neither textual criticism nor palaeography is a topic on which
                        he has established research credentials. It looks, however, like
                        either Mack has given a confused account of Thiede's views, or you
                        have mis-remembered Mack!
                        1) "Uncial" is a term properly pertaining to a style of Latin writing.
                        But NT text critics have persisted in using it, though "majuscule"
                        would be the proper term to use, in contrast to the later ascendant
                        "minuscule" or "cursive" handwriting of Greek mss from the late 8th
                        cent CE. Majuscule/uncial writing was characteristic all through
                        the earliest Christian centuries, and no shift away from this writing
                        style was made in the 2nd cent.
                        2) Thiede's case has to do with the particular shape of particular
                        Greek letters. It's not a matter of "uncial" but of the particular
                        shape of particular "uncial" letters, which, he argues, indicates a
                        dating in the lst cent. He has been shown to be methodologically
                        inept in this argument by competent palaeographers in the relevant
                        scholarly journals.
                        (For an introduction to Greek mss and palaeography, see B. M.
                        Metzger, _Manuscripts of the Greek Bible_ (Oxford Univ. press,
                        1981).


                        Thanks for the response. I double-checked the relevant passage in Mack's
                        book, so it may be that the first option (confused account) is more likely
                        than the second. Things are considerably clearer now.

                        Your two numbered paragraphs are consistent with what I've been able to put
                        together on the topic, which is why I found it hard to follow Mack's
                        argument. From what I've been able to learn on the topic, rounding of
                        certain uncial letters appears to have begun in the late 2d century,
                        possibly in Alexandria, possibly as a result of increased use of parchment;
                        one of the reasons for the dating of the fragments was that they appeared to
                        exhibit a transition from the "blocked" letters to the "rounded" letters.

                        In any event, thanks again. I'll move Metzger's book higher on my "wish
                        list" and consider amateur hour to have ended.
                      • Dave Washburn
                        ... Speaking strictly from the POV of language, it really doesn t matter how the term originated. What is important is that all who are involved in the field
                        Message 11 of 13 , Apr 6, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jack wrote:
                          > Michael Holmes wrote:
                          > >
                          > > At 08:08 AM 4/6/99 -0500, Jack Kilmon asked:
                          > > > "Uncial" has been used as a term for
                          > > >book hand Greek by every scholar I can think of, including
                          > > >Metzger, as far back as the science goes in publications. I have
                          > > >even seen it applied to Coptic by Irigoin and Turner. If such is
                          > > >the case, isn't usage the determination of what is proper?
                          > >
                          > > The (relatively recent) preference of many for "majuscule" likely reflects a
                          > > point of view expressed by D.C. Parker:
                          > >
                          > > "It has long been habitual to describe this class of MSS as uncials. The
                          > > word's use has its origin in Mabillon's interpretation of Jerome's phrase
                          > > about MSS written _uncialibus litteris_. Whatever the original meaning, a
                          > > consensus has emerged that the name should be applied only to a particular
                          > > kind of Latin majuscule. [he references: G. Cavallo and H. Maehler, _Greek
                          > > Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period A.D. 300-800_ (University of London
                          > > Institute of Classical Studies Buletin Supplement 47; London:" Institute of
                          > > Classical Studies, 1987).] The word _majuscule_ should be used to designate
                          > > the class of Greek hands of which we write. It means "of fair size," as
                          > > opposed to minuscule, "rather small." (D. C. Parker, "The Majuscule
                          > > Manuscripts of the New Testament," in Ehrman and Holmes, _The Text of the NT
                          > > in Contemporary Research_, 22).
                          > >
                          > > So "uncial" has gone from being a rather general term to a more precisely
                          > > defined technical term, and is in the process of being replaced for general
                          > > use by "majuscule."
                          >
                          > Parker's usage in "Codex Bezae" made me think that he was
                          > involved in this transition. Because of the common origin
                          > and calligraphic similarity between Greek and Latin hands,
                          > I have never seen a problem using "uncial" for either but
                          > if the majority of scholarship adopts this...hey, I'm
                          > flexible. :) Its going to take a long time though.

                          Speaking strictly from the POV of language, it really doesn't matter
                          how the term originated. What is important is that all who are
                          involved in the field understand how it's currently used. As
                          someone else pointed out, "uncial" has been the standard term for
                          a particular Greek style of writing for over 100 years, which
                          suggests that the word has assumed that meaning WRT Greek
                          mss. and has transcended its original Latin connotation. That's
                          what words do, so I see no good reason to try and supplant it for
                          the sake of its etymology.

                          Dave Washburn
                          http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                          A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.
                        • Thomas J. Kraus
                          Message 12 of 13 , Apr 6, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            D.R. Edwards wrote:
                            > Thanks for the response. I double-checked the relevant passage in Mack's
                            > book, so it may be that the first option (confused account) is more likely
                            > than the second. Things are considerably clearer now.
                            >
                            > Your two numbered paragraphs are consistent with what I've been able to put
                            > together on the topic, which is why I found it hard to follow Mack's
                            > argument. From what I've been able to learn on the topic, rounding of
                            > certain uncial letters appears to have begun in the late 2d century,
                            > possibly in Alexandria, possibly as a result of increased use of parchment;
                            > one of the reasons for the dating of the fragments was that they appeared to
                            > exhibit a transition from the "blocked" letters to the "rounded" letters
                          • Thomas J. Kraus
                            One more example demonstrating (my) stupidity (cut message). Sorry. Edward, I wouldn´t be that optimistic about secure dating on palaeographical grounds. Many
                            Message 13 of 13 , Apr 7, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              One more example demonstrating (my) stupidity (cut message). Sorry.
                              Edward,
                              I wouldn´t be that optimistic about secure dating on palaeographical
                              grounds. Many hands almost resemble each other but nonetheless have
                              characteristics on their own. Not to forget that scribes might have
                              attempted at imitating a kind of archaic style, a style out of fashion in
                              their time, or they indeliberately wrote in a way which was still to come
                              into fashion during the next generations. The repayment of a loan,
                              P.Vindob.G 19811, for instance, carries three subscriptions spanning a
                              period of about four hundred years (different styles) if only palaeography
                              is taken as the decisive factor for dating. Luckily, a notary put down (in
                              a regular cursive hand) his remark and a date. Nonetheless, for literary
                              documents there are, in most cases, no other possibilities to judge from
                              the style of writing, compare that with other manuscripts, and then give a
                              hypothetical date. But: this remains hypothetical, and if a specific style
                              of writing falls out of fashion, does not mean that it will not appear
                              later on somewhere.
                              Apart from Metzger, I would recommend: F. G. Kenyon, The Palaeography of
                              Greek Papyri, London 1899; W. Schubart, Palaeographie. Erster Teil:
                              Griechische Palaeographie, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft I,4,1,
                              Munich 1925 (a classic); E.M. Thompson, A Handbook of Greek and Latin
                              Paleography, Chicago 1968; E.G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient
                              World, 2nd ed. London 1987, and above all: R. Seider, Palaeographie der
                              griechischen Papyri. 3 vols, Stuttgart 1967-1990.
                              P.S.: Dave Washburn mentioned: "... "uncial" has been the standard term
                              for a particular Greek style of writing for over 100 years". This is
                              misleading as long as you do not say which kind of uncial writing you mean
                              (uncial vs minuscule!). By the way, the original meaning of uncial and
                              majuscule definitely is of importance to judge and understand the way of
                              writing found in a manuscript in a proper way (see e.g. Turner, Greek
                              Manuscripts, 1-5).
                              Best wishes,
                              Thomas J. Kraus
                              Universitaet Regensburg
                              Kath.-theol. Fakultaet
                              Universitaetsstr. 31
                              D-93053 Regensburg

                              Tel. + 49 941 943 36 90
                              Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86
                              thomas-juergen.kraus@...-regensburg.de
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.