Subject: tc-list Uncial or Uncial?

From: "D.R. Edwards" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:00:45 -0500

Greetings to all - I still hope you have occasional amateur hours.

In reading Mack's "Who Wrote the New Testament," he discusses (p. 9, I
believe) Thiede's views with regard to the Magdalen Fragments.  According to
Mack, one of the reasons Thiede dated the fragments so early is that they
are written in uncial, which went out of style in the mid-first century CE.
Mack counters with the statement that uncials could have been used as late
as 85 CE, which is more-or-less the midpoint of dates that are commonly
suggested for the composition of Matthew.

My confusion stems from my idea that uncial script, properly speaking,
consists of rounded letters and has some other orthographic characteristics
that distinguish it from the earlier block script.  I was also under the
impression that this change to uncial script didn't occur until late in the
2d century CE.

Needless to say, I'm hopelessly confused.  I'd be very grateful if someone
could help me to better understand Mack's comments in the context of the
script.

D. Edwards

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 15:52:42 -0600

I was under the impression that Thiede stretched for the early date
not becuse of the uncial script but a zeitschrift script that was used
in Herodian times.

Jack

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 10:15:55 +000

In response to D. Edwards' query:
I can't speak to Mack's book, Who Wrote the NT?, except to note 
that neither textual criticism nor palaeography is a topic on which 
he has established research credentials.  It looks, however, like 
either Mack has given a confused account of Thiede's views, or you 
have mis-remembered Mack!
1) "Uncial" is a term properly pertaining to a style of Latin writing.  
But NT text critics have persisted in using it, though "majuscule" 
would be the proper term to use, in contrast to the later ascendant 
"minuscule" or "cursive" handwriting of Greek mss from the late 8th 
cent CE.  Majuscule/uncial writing was characteristic all through 
the earliest Christian centuries, and no shift away from this writing 
style was made in the 2nd cent.
2) Thiede's case has to do with the particular shape of particular 
Greek letters. It's not a matter of "uncial" but of the particular 
shape of particular "uncial" letters, which, he argues, indicates a 
dating in the lst cent.  He has been shown to be methodologically 
inept in this argument by competent palaeographers in the relevant 
scholarly journals.
(For an introduction to Greek mss and palaeography, see B. M. 
Metzger, _Manuscripts of the Greek Bible_ (Oxford Univ. press, 
1981).
Larry Hurtado
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 08:08:33 -0500

> style was made in the 2nd cent.

Although Uncial did come about as a calligraphic form of monumental
Latin, isn't it true that the rounded angles of Greek majuscule
were its inspiration?  "Uncial" has been used as a term for
book hand Greek by every scholar I can think of, including
Metzger, as far back as the science goes in publications.  I have 
even seen it applied to Coptic by Irigoin and Turner.  If such is
the case, isn't usage the determination of what is proper?

I cannot find my copy right now, but what does Hatch say about
this in his "Origin and Meaning of the term Uncial" in Classical
Philology 30, 1935?

> Metzger, _Manuscripts of the Greek Bible_ (Oxford Univ. press,

Dr. Metzger goes on to explain how the zierstil style continued
into the 2nd and even the 3rd centuries.  Surely Thiede knew
this.

Jack
-- 
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

http://www.historian.net

---

From: "D.R. Edwards" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 10:17:03 -0400

Thanks for the response.  I double-checked the relevant passage in Mack's
book, so it may be that the first option (confused account) is more likely
than the second.  Things are considerably clearer now.

Your two numbered paragraphs are consistent with what I've been able to put
together on the topic, which is why I found it hard to follow Mack's
argument.  From what I've been able to learn on the topic, rounding of
certain uncial letters appears to have begun in the late 2d century,
possibly in Alexandria, possibly as a result of increased use of parchment;
one of the reasons for the dating of the fragments was that they appeared to
exhibit a transition from the "blocked" letters to the "rounded" letters.

In any event, thanks again.  I'll move Metzger's book higher on my "wish
list" and consider amateur hour to have ended.

---

From: "Thomas J. Kraus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 08:12:07 +0200

D.R. Edwards wrote:
> exhibit a transition from the "blocked" letters to the "rounded" letters