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

Re: tc-list Uncial or Uncial?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Apr 2, 1999
      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 2 of 13 , Apr 6, 1999
        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 3 of 13 , Apr 6, 1999
          "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 4 of 13 , Apr 6, 1999
            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 5 of 13 , Apr 6, 1999
              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 6 of 13 , Apr 6, 1999
                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 7 of 13 , Apr 6, 1999
                  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 8 of 13 , Apr 6, 1999
                    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 9 of 13 , Apr 7, 1999
                      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.