Re: Gospel of Peter Greek and a question
- Andrew 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
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).