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

Re: tc-list Uncial or Uncial?

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    ... you mean: Zierschrift (scrolled, ornate) ? Best wishes Wieland ... willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.