Mon Jun 10 11:49:55 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jun 10 11:49:55 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA24977; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:48:30 -0400
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 10:45 CDT
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz)
Subject: Manuscript fragments....
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 989

TCers --

Just wondering aloud here....

Why is it that uncials are usually fragments, while minuscules are
generally complete or nearly? As I recall, about 80% of uncials are
fragmentary, often only a single leaf. Whereas a (very quick) check
of the Kurzgefasste Liste seemed to show that only about 5% of
minuscules are fragmentary (I was checking for manuscripts, not
of the Apocalypse, of less than fifty folios), and the number of
single-page manuscripts is infinitesimal.

Is this just because many of the papyri and uncials are recovered
from rubbish heaps and the like, whereas minuscules are usually
kept in libraries? Or is there something else involved that might
help us in our discussion of the destruction of manuscript's
ancestors?

And while we're on the topic -- Did the report by Lake, Blake, and
New examine the manuscripts to try to tell if any of them were
copied from uncials? That might figure in somehow.

Thanks for any thoughts.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back