1) The text of this tractate has been established, and published with a German translation, in MARTIN KRAUSE and PAHOR LABIB, eds., Gnostische und hermetische Schriften aus Codex II und Codex VI, Abhandlungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts Kairo, koptische Reihe, Bd. 2 (Gliickstadt: Verlag J. J. Augustin, 1971), pp. 107-21 (hereafter cited as Schriften). The tractate's enumeration, according to the now standard system of designating texts in the corpus, is CG VI: I, 1-12, 22. 2) The literal translation of the Coptic of CG VI: 6, 17, as KRAUSE has established the text, is: He [i.e., Jesus] is a great power to give power. (translation my own.) KRAUSE conjectures, however, that at 17b one might be meant to read etti for eti. (Schriften, p. 114, note I.) If one takes that reading, 6, 17 should be translated: is a great power which I give. (translation my own.) At CG VI:9, IIb-14 the mysterious Lithargoal does finally identify himself as: Jesus Christus, der Sohn des lebendigen Gottes, ... (KRAUSE's translation, Schriften, p. 117.) It might, therefore, appear that the reading KRAUSE conjectures in the footnote is, on the basis of context, to be preferred to that he actually offers in the established text. In light, however, of the apostles' awe-struck reaction at 9, I9ff. to Jesus' self-identification, it is difficult to reconcile the conjectured reading with Peter's reaction (or rather non-reaction) to the statement at 6, 17. It is true that KRAUSE has argued that this tractate originally consisted of three independent narratives (CG VI:I, 3-29; 1:30-7, 23; 7:24-12, 19) which were redacted to form the text as it now stands. (Die Petrusakten in Codex VI von Nag Hammadi, in MARTIN KRAUSE, JAMES M. ROBINSON, and FREDERIK WISSE, gen. eds., Nag Hammadi Studies, in progress. [Leiden: Brill, 1971-], vol. 3: Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Alexander Bahlig, ed. MARTIN KRAUSE, 46-51.) Whether or not the details of KRAUSE'S analysis of the exact division of the sources and of the process of redaction are correct, several facts make it clear that the present text has been edited from sources. For example, as KRAUSE points out, there are inconsistencies, and even contradictions, within the plot of the text as it now stands. Therefore, if KRAUSE is correct and 9, 19ff. is part of a narrative originally independent of the narrative of which 6, 17 is a part, one might argue that there is no need