Subject: Re: Manuscript fragments....

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 12:37 CDT

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

>At 10:45 AM 6/10/96, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>>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?
>
>Wouldn't a major consideration be simply their difference in age (in
>general).  Most Uncials date from before the 9th century; most (all?)
>miniscules after.
>
>Also, there may be a "false resonance" here.  Presumably the total number
>of manuscripts produced in any century grew from the first century until
>the introduction of printing.  Viewed in this way it would make sense that
>there are more younger(=Miniscule) better preserved manuscripts than
>older(=Uncial) manuscripts.

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.

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.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:42:23 -0400 (EDT)

> more likely to have been damaged.

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

> 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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~