Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Gospel of Peter Greek and a question

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Bernhard
    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 interesting
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Wieland,

      > I found that there is an interesting textcritical question here at a
      > crucial point, namely the NAI communicated by "The Cross that Spoke" (D.
      > Crossan).

      I am glad to hear that the new edition throws this textual problem into
      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:
      > KAI UPAKOH HKOUETO APO TOU STAUROU *TINAI*

      After staring at the TINAI for a while, I have to confess that it looks to
      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 or
      > what?

      Different 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
      has done).

      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.

      Best,
      Andrew
    • Wieland Willker
      Since there is a new definitive edition out about the Gospel of Peter (see msg. no. 94), I have checked my Greek text once again and have it now hopefully
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 30, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Since there is a new definitive edition out about the Gospel of Peter
        (see msg. no. 94), I have checked my Greek text once again and have it
        now hopefully error free at:

        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texteapo/GPeter-Greek.html

        I found that there is an interesting textcritical question here at a
        crucial point, namely the NAI communicated by "The Cross that Spoke" (D.
        Crossan).

        Have a look at:
        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texteapo/NAI.jpg

        What we really read here is:
        KAI UPAKOH HKOUETO APO TOU STAUROU *TINAI*
        The editors note that it looks like if the I of TI is written over
        something else.

        The question is how to interpret this TINAI. Is it OTI NAI or TO NAI or
        what?

        Best wishes
        Wieland
        <><
        ------------------------------------------------
        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        Textcritical commentary:
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
      • Wieland Willker
        ... 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 is
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Andrew Bernhard wrote:
          > how are we to take the other nominative in the sentence UPAKOH
          > ("obedience")?

          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" 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
          stroke.
          I have no idea what to make of this.


          Best wishes
          Wieland
          <><
          ------------------------------------------------
          Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          Textcritical commentary:
          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
        • Andrew Bernhard
          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 interpretation
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 7, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            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
            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
            speech.

            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
            Danker/Bauer; LSJ
            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).

            Thomas
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.