Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments....

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 15:10 CDT

On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, [email-masked] (Nichael Lynn Cramer) wrote,
in part:

>>>>Why is it that uncials are usually fragments, while minuscules are
>>>>generally complete or nearly?

[...]

>>
>>I think it's a bit more complicated than that. By that argument,
>>survival rates for uncials and minuscules should be the same for
>>the centuries they overlap (IX and X).
>>
>>I thought I would check that. Using the Kurzgefasste Liste (1st Ed,
>>since that's what I have at home), I looked for *all* ninth century
>>minuscules and uncials. I may have missed one or two (this was
>>obviously a very quick scan), *but*
>>
>>Of 15 minuscules from the ninth century, *all* are significant (50+
>>folios). Most are complete.
>>
>>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.
>
>You're right --that is interesting (although we still have to separate out
>the age affect: cf your reference to papyri above).
>
>A couple of things come to mind.  First, I wonder if there was any
>significant correlation between Uncial/Minscule scripy and book material
>during this period?

There shouldn't be. By the ninth century, papyrus had ceased to
be used for manuscript copying but paper had not yet come into use.

>If not, it would be useful to know what (if any) patterns of damage the
>Uncials exhibit.  If so, could we infer that was there something about the
>larger characters that tended to make the books more prone to damage?
>
>For example, is the binding the culprit here?  The larger size of the
>characters would tend to put the binding under greater stress because books
>would need to be thicker for an equal amount of text (e.g. it's all I can
>do to keep my 20's vintage Liddel-Scott together, but I have even older
>magazines that are perfectly happy with a couple of staples).  There's also
>the minor affect that fewer characters per page means proportionally more
>page turning.  A damaged or broken binding will clearly put the leaves at
>greater risk.

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.

>More generally would a physically smaller book be more or less likely to
>survive (i.e. is it safer because it presents a smaller "target")?

A few ideas that occur to me.

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

* 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.

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

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:29:58 -0400 (EDT)

> 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.

>   they used the writing style that people in later centuries were used

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).

>   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.
 
>   explanations.) A few misdated manuscripts could completely alter these

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.

>   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

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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~