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

Re: tc-list Uncial or Uncial?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.