Mon Jun 10 20:46:38 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jun 10 20:46:38 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA27581; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:45:32 -0400
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:42:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments....
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1446



On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> Of 38 uncials, only 22 are substantial, and many of these are more
> or less damaged. 14 uncials are fragmentary (usually less than 20
> folios, and uncials generally had less text on a folio than
> minuscules), and 2 uncials were single folios.
> 
> Thus, even when they are of the same date, uncials seem to be
> more likely to have been damaged.

Which fits in with Lake and my own suppositions in this regard.

> Just as an aside, these early minuscules are also more likely
> to be non-Byzantine. Those fifteen minuscules I listed included,
> among others, 33, 565, 892, and 1424. Not enough manuscripts to
> be statistically significant -- but it's interesting.

Not the majority, but a significant minority of non-Byzantine minuscules, 
which themselves clearly stem from uncial exemplars, in which case there 
seems little reason not to consider that the remaining minuscules of the 
9th and 10th centuries (especially) likely derive from now non-extant 
uncials.  This of course becomes of significance in helping to explain  
whereunto all the early Byzantine uncials may have disappeared.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back