117Re: Gospel of Peter Greek and a question
- Sep 30, 2004Wieland,
> 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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>