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

Re: Gospel of Peter Greek and a question

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.