Talk:List of New Testament uncials

Among other things, shelfmarks

This is a interesting list, however I have I few questions. I am not knowledgable about Biblical criticism and the scholarship surrounding the topic, although I know something about manuscripts in general, especially from an art historical perspective. Why is special consideration given to manuscript that use uncials, as oposed to minuscules?. (BTW the defintion of a minuscule as having "small, connected" letters doesn't match my understanding minuscule, but then I am more versed with Latin scripts than Greek). I notice that all of the manuscripts in the Category:Uncials are Greek manuscripts, which makes sense if these manuscripts are main interest for textual criticism. However, since Latin uncial scripts exist, perhaps this should be made explicit.

Also I note that term New Testament codex is used in the lead rather than New Testament uncial I find both of the terms a bit confusing, New Testament uncial to my ear sounds as if it describing a type of script. The term New Testament codex sounds strange to me as a codex is any bound manuscript. To my mind the Book of Kells is a New Testament codex, although I am sure that is not meant here. If these are terms of art within biblical textual criticism scholarship, the we should, of course, use them, but that should be explained explicitly.

Would it possible to include the manuscripts shelfmarks within the table? For those who are interested in manuscripts for purposes other than textual criticism the shelfmark is an invaluable means of idientifying which manuscript is being discussed. Finally, should we perhaps expand this list to include all three hundred or so uncial codices known. (And create articles for each manuscript.) Dsmdgold 00:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We are still working out the kinks in the naming. Codex is simply wrong because papyri and miniscules are found in codex form. Uncial is one of the 6 or so categories used in textual criticism (papyrus, uncial, miniscule, lectionary, non-Greek versions, quotes in Church Fathers). Please see Manuscript description to see how they are numbered, grouped. The first four (papyrus, uncial, miniscule, and lectionary) all refer to Greek manuscripts. Greek, of course, is the most important to New Testament textual criticism because it is believed to be the original language of the autographs. Of course, things aren't always so easy because many manuscripts are diglots containing Latin on opposing pages. Also, not all manuscripts are of the New Testament, which is why I initially removed "New Testament" from the newly created cat (I changed Category:New testament codices to Category:Uncials). I realize now that my name is also problematic because it isn't clear what the subject it. There are non-Greek, non-Christian manuscripts that could be classified based on the script as "uncial". So maybe we need a category like Category:Uncials (New Testament textual criticism) or Category:Greek New Testament uncials. But you are correct that in New Testament textual criticism, the term uncial is used to refer to a specific set of 275 or so Greek uncial manuscripts. Any suggestions on naming would be appreciated; we need to make sure that it makes sense to those unfamiliar with the topic.

Next, shelfmarks are a good idea, and I think, instead of adding a new column, just put them in the same entry as library. Perhaps we don't need to add all 275 odd uncials to the table (as it says now, it's for the most notable, although that can be subjective to an extent). I think one day, it would be nice to have an article on each manuscript, but we may find that not everyone is notable. Thanks for your comments.-Andrew c 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if uncials is a term of art, then it should be used, but for the benefit of those who use the word in other contexts, its usage should be made explicit within the first two sentences of the lead. I suppose "List of New Testatment uncial manuscripts" might help clear the confusion, while still being recognizable to NT textual criticism people. I agree that the category name needs to change, but I'm not sure what the best option would be. "Category:New Testatment uncial manuscripts" seems clear to me, but so would "Category:Uncials (New Testament textual criticism)" (and would be good if you wanted to include articles that are not about specific manuscripts.) I think including the shelf mark with the library would be a good idea. I also think the lead should explain what the numbers in the far left column are. I think it would be nice to have all of the manuscripts have articles, although I'm not likely to help on any that don't have pictures. Others may disagree, but I think that any manuscript (or fragment that contains more than a few words) from before AD 1000 is notable. Dsmdgold 01:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Great ideas. I'll see if I can't address some of your concerns (and feel free to edit yourself). I wanted to ask, since you know a lot about the illuminated side of things, what is the copyright status of images of manuscripts? I've seen tags that say things like the artist died over 70 years ago, and therefore reproductions of the work can no longer be copyrighted, but a lot of these earlier manuscripts are not illuminated and may not be considered art. The thing is, most of the university libraries that house these manuscripts have great scans of the manuscripts. Are the scanned images copyright? Can we upload the library images to the commons? I hope you get the jist of what I'm asking. Thanks.-Andrew c 01:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As I understand the situation (keep in mind that I am not a lawyer), under US law, if a piece of two dimensional artwork is public domain, then a close copy of that artwork is also in public domain, because a close reproduction does not have sufficient originality to qualify for copyright protection. This is true even if a great deal of skill and work is required to get the close copy and if the copy is in a different medium (photograph of a painting). Note that a photograph of a three-dimensional artwork does not count as the photographer makes decisions such as angle and lighting that introduces an aspect of originality. As this applies to images of these manuscript without"artwork" here is my reasoning: The text is clearly in public domain, so a transcription is also clearly public domain. An image of the page should also be public domain, even if lacks decoration. Calligraphy is art. Page layout is art. A photograph of these lacks originality. In short I would use the "PD-art" tag and use them. (The ruling that my reasoning is based on is Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..) Dsmdgold 02:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. It seems like scanning an old hand crafted document isn't copyrightable under US law. But that is only my best guess at the law, as is yours. I uploaded images for Papyrus 37 last night, so it got me thinking about the whole copyright issue. Thanks for your time.-Andrew c 03:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you would love Codex Purpureus Rossanensis, Dsmdgold. Google it. I think you'll enjoy if you do. :) Alastair Haines 12:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean the Rossano Gospels? :) It is quite cool. Dsmdgold 12:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So is it OK with everyone if I post a CfD to change Category:Uncials to Category:Greek New Testament uncials?-Andrew c 14:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer Category:Greek New Testament uncial manuscripts, but won't object in any way to the other. Dsmdgold 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 16#Category:Uncials.-Andrew c 00:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested copyedit

As requested at the GOCE request page. In the Classification of uncials, the last paragraph in particular might be a little too "advanced" for a general level of knowledge. It might be worthwhile if some of the editors here more familiar with this subject re-wrote that and sort of "dumbed it down" a little. It would certainly make it easier to read.

Also, I'm confused by the text, it may be contradictory, in that section, it says that Aland ended up with 299 uncials by 1989, but the last sentence of the next paragraph says that Dobschutz had expanded it to 0208 by 1933, is 0208 less than 299? I thought the text says that the preceding 0's were added after they ran out of letters, if that's right, it could be written more clearly, how many uncials is 0208? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a little work to be done on that table too. As per WP:Overlink all those links in the last 2 columns should be reomoved (yes, all of them, really!). If someone else would here would like to do that, I'm ok with it Done. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Upgrade to this page

I am wishing to bring this page up to date with some substantial changes including:

1) Verify the accuracy of the data 2) Include a new column for number of pages, and this would be per institution when a Manuscript is split up. 3) In the table design, put in proper row separations when a single manuscript is housed at multiple institutions. 4) Include a new column for referenced links directly to the web pages where digital images of the manuscripts can be viewed.

I will wait a little bit before beginning to allow time for anyone who follows this page to respond with questions, suggestions, and so forth. ChickDaniels (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Upgrade is finished, now moving into maintenance mode to keep the data up to date. ChickDaniels (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of New Testament uncials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609134746/http://www.smb.museum/smb/index.php to http://www.smb.museum/smb/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)