Wieland, ... I am glad to hear that the new edition throws this textual problem into relief. You are definitely right that it does raise an interestingMessage 1 of 4 , Sep 30, 2004View SourceWieland,
> I found that there is an interesting textcritical question here at aI am glad to hear that the new edition throws this textual problem into
> crucial point, namely the NAI communicated by "The Cross that Spoke" (D.
relief. You are definitely right that it does raise an interesting
text-critical question, especially given that it is probably the most quoted
passage in the Gospel of Peter.
> What we really read here is:After staring at the TINAI for a while, I have to confess that it looks to
> KAI UPAKOH HKOUETO APO TOU STAUROU *TINAI*
me most like: tau-PSI-nu-alpha-iota (tynai), which would be nonsense.
Clearly, there is some sort of error here.
Before discussing this further, I would be curious to know how the editors
translate this passage into English.
I think what we can say at this point is that it is clear that _something_
"was heard from the cross". What exactly is not clear to me.
If we correct the end of the verse to the nominative TO NAI, how are we to
take the other nominative in the sentence UPAKOH ("obedience")?
> The question is how to interpret this TINAI. Is it OTI NAI or TO NAI orDifferent scholars have had different opinions about this. Swete proposed TO
NAI in his 1892 edition; Robinson proposed <O>TI NAI in his edition of the
same year; but Swete adopted Robinson's reading in his 1893 edition, as did
Mara in her edition in the early 1970s. I'm curious why Luhrmann in 2000 and
now Kraus in 2004 have decided to return to TO NAI (if this is what Kraus
I will also forward this email (and Wieland's) to Dr. Kraus and see what he
has to say about this.
Hope to discuss this further.
... I think that UPAKOH simply means answer here. Of the letters in question, only the final AI is safe. Everything else is open. Not even the first T isMessage 1 of 4 , Oct 4, 2004View SourceAndrew Bernhard wrote:
> how are we to take the other nominative in the sentence UPAKOHI think that UPAKOH simply means "answer" here.
Of the letters in question, only the final AI is safe. Everything else
is open. Not even the first "T" is safe, because have a look at how the
scribe writes Lambda (e.g. next line). Also a Pi is possible. The Nu is
also not safe, because there is a gap between the second and the third
I have no idea what to make of this.
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
I tend to think that the Tau and Nu are comparatively certain, although your point is well taken that the handwriting does leave some room for interpretationMessage 1 of 4 , Oct 7, 2004View SourceI tend to think that the Tau and Nu are comparatively certain, although your
point is well taken that the handwriting does leave some room for
interpretation (although I'm not sure what else the nu might be). For me the
second letter is well taken.
In any case, I wrote Dr. Kraus about his work and this question. The
remainder of this email is his reply (posted with his permission):
- - - - -
thank you very much for your interest in my work and our edition (which took
quite some time to get finished). our main focus was the transcription of
the text according to quality photos and a translation with short
commentaries in order to enable scholars to start the discussion of the two
texts (GosPet, ApocPet) anew, then without the often ideological burden (of
being of minor importance and quality).
in our edition we print the text according to the letters given on the
parchment which could be easily read, even if there are quite a number of
corrections, above all letters written over previous ones.
you mention GosPet 42: we print an emendation "OTI NAI" and list in the
apparatus the consequence of letters visible on the parchment "TINAI" with
the first iota written over another letter (basically and personally, I see
this as a letter started and not finished, definitely not a upsilon, tau,
...). nevertheless, the iota is obvious (just compare, for instance, the
iota in the following NAI)
luehrmann in his "Fragmente" set "TO NAI" (literally, "the yes" or so),
which would be possible as well and only make a stylistic difference. we
stuck to "OTI NAI" in order to keep the sequence of TINAI (with O missing at
the start) and to clearly preserve the OTI as usual introduction of direct
furthermore, you refer to the meaning and translation of that verse: the
UPAKOH is to be taken as the subject of HKOUETO, of course. there is a
second meaning (at least a second one) of UPAKOH: reply made to a
question/answer derived from the usage of the verb UPAOUW (see Plato, Soph.
217d - noun; Plato, Phd. 59e; Xenophon, Symp. 1,11 a.o.). - see
this fits pretty well within the context as well: question in GosPet 41,
answer in 42.
we gave the following translations: "Und vom Kreuz her hörte man die
Antwort: `Ja´." - "And a response was heard from the cross: `Yes´."
well, I do not know whether that leads to anything at all (see the intention
of the volume).