Subject: uncials & majuscules

From: "Michael Fox" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:54:00 -0600

While we're at it, is there in any difference between "uncial" and
"majuscule"?

 Mike

---

From: Michael Holmes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:19:55 -0500 (CDT)

>While we're at it, is there in any difference between "uncial" and

In common usage, not really.  But D. C. Parker, in his contribution to _The
Text of the NT in Contemporary Research_ (ed. Ehrman & Holmes; Eerdmans,
1995) points out that among palaeographers "uncial" applies "only to a
particular kind of Latin majuscule."  Thus "majuscule," "of a fair size,"
stands against "minuscule," "rather small," as the general category, with
"uncial" being one type of majuscule.

He also points out that in NT text-critical usage, "uncial" is almost a
description of the character of a book, not just the script, since to fall
into the category of "uncial" in the Gregory-Aland system, an item must not
only be written in a certain script (majuscule/uncial), but also on
parchment or paper (since uncial/majuscule writing on papyrus goes in the
"Papyri" category) and with a continuous text (since the ca. 270
lectionaries written in majuscule/uncial script are categorized under the
Lectionaries).  The latter two criteria, of course, having nothing to do
with script.

So, the use of the term "uncial" in NT textual criticism is typically
idiosyncratic.  In light of the history of the usage of the term "uncial" in
our discipline, it is unlikely that we will abandon "uncial" as a category
reference (for continuous-text MSS in a certain script on parchment or
paper).  But perhaps for clarity and precision we might follow Parker's
suggestion and use the term "majuscule" if we intend to refer just to the
script, apart from other characteristics of a MS.  If nothing else, it would
make it less easy to forget that the papyri and many lectionaries are
written in the same type of majuscule script as our "uncial" MSS.

Mike Holmes
Bethel College