Mon Jun 10 21:34:24 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jun 10 21:34:24 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA27729; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:33:09 -0400
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:29:58 -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: 4491



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


> I wouldn't think this would have much effect. Yes, a large book would
> be more subject to damage -- but a minuscule which contained nearly the
> whole Bible (e.g. 33, which dates from this century) would presumably
> be more fragile than an uncial of only one part of scripture.

Of course, to the contrary, a clearly _expensive_ book like 33 which 
contained the entire NT might be more carefully safeguarded.  Vellum was 
not exactly cheap, and the amount of scribal activity needed to copy a 
single gospel, let alone the entire NT would tend to make the owners of 
such MSS generally extremely careful.

> * The obvious: That minuscules were better cared for (presumably because
>   they used the writing style that people in later centuries were used
>   to).

Again, I do not think that there should be any implication that the 
uncials (or even the papyri) were not generally well-cared for.  The 
papyri eventually disintegrated, as we might expect; but the vellum 
uncial should have remained mostly intact for many centuries into the 
minuscule era, unless in fact a systematic destruction of the uncials had 
occurred as Lake surmised.  Most definitely in the later centuries people 
were used to the minuscule script, but that alone would not prevent them 
from revering and preserving unused uncials which may have survived from 
a bygone era; no, the destruction of the uncials had to have a greater 
cause, and the change in script is clearly the answer, since there are 
extant scribal comments which speak of not being able easily to read 
uncial script, and the burden of copying from an uncial exemplar, etc. -- 
and this within 50 years after the introduction of the minuscule script! 
(these examples come from comments regarding secular literature, and not 
biblical, but the same would apply with few changes necessary).

> * Different rates of adoption: Perhaps minuscules were adopted sooner
>   in areas that took better care of books, or where the climate was
>   more conducive to preservation of books.

Nope.  Basically the minuscule script hit the Greek-speaking world by 
storm, and uncials ceased to be copied within a century after the 
introduction of the new script.
 
> * The data is defective. Maybe paleography is not as accurate as assumed.
>   (This is not an attack on anyone; just an attempt to list all possible
>   explanations.) A few misdated manuscripts could completely alter these
>   results.

We have too many dated MSS from secular Greek works as well as biblical 
(see, e.g., Lake's 10 or 11 volumes of specimens in this regard) to even 
wonder on this point.  Palaeography of the later uncial era as well as 
the minuscule era is quite accurate.

>   In assessing this explanation, it might also be worth remembering that
>   the period prior to the ninth century was very hard on manuscripts. As
>   I recall, there are no more than two substantial manuscripts from the
>   eighth century (L and possibly Psi), and *none* from the seventh. In the
>   sixth we find some fairly long manuscripts (e.g. N), but again, nothing
>   complete. 

But this still puts the cart before the horse, and denies the clearest 
explanation, which remains that of Lake, Blake, and New.  There is no 
reason to presume the 6th-9th century to be particularly "hard" or "severe" 
regarding MSS, when, even allowing for the fragile nature of papyri and 
their destruction by accident or persecution, we still have a large 
quantity of them preserved as opposed to the near disappearance of 
6th-9th century uncials which were written on secure vellum and which did 
not undergo such hostilities of environment or persecution as did the 
papyri.  No, some other cause still must be found for the slim 
attestation of uncial evidence during this period, and Lake most 
certainly seems to be on the right track.

> If, perhaps, the "ninth century" uncials are in fact a little
>   older than the "ninth century" minuscules, it might explain the
>   discrepancy.

They basically aren't; also, there remain a few 10th century uncials 
which date subsequent to the ninth century minuscules.  What then about them?

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

Back