I still think
> that what would be of utmost use to people studying these texts is aWhen do you think you'll have that ready for us, ye of many jobs? ;)
> concordance, but what an undertaking *that* would be!
I've always thought Strong's (?) concordance was aptly named. Yours
- Hello Gerry
On 10/05/05, you wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "janahooks" <janahooks@y...>
>> When do you think you'll have that ready for us, ye of many jobs?
> How 'bout I start with the "Fragments" of Codex XII . . . and have
> that ready by . . . say . . . early next year? How long do you
> s'pose the compilation would take at that rate of installments? ;-)
>> I've always thought Strong's (?) concordance was aptly named.
>> Yours would be....?
> Well, I really hate the thought of it turning out like the dry
> reading of a mere lexical database, so I kinda had in mind that it
> would be named something like _The *Illustrated* Concordance of
> Gnostic Texts_. I don't think that's been done before. ;-)
> Of course, as we can see by recent discussions here, there are major
> obstacles to be overcome before any such project could be
> undertaken. Would we prefer this tool to aid with the entire Nag
> Hammadi collection, or should it focus only on "Gnostic" texts
> (excluding some works in the NHL and including others from
> elsewhere)? Either way, we should choose one or more anthologies
> with helpful references for the pagination and line numbering of the
> original works, and at least one *accepted* translation for each of
> those texts. Herein lies the first problem: Whose translation of
> each tractate do we deem authoritative enough to use as the bases
> for our concordance? It's rather like the process of canonization,
> and, considering questions over the restoration of many parts of
> these works, deciding on a particular reconstruction for each book
> could be difficult (to say the least).
> Just as we saw with Trimorphic Protennoia, we can find different
> reasons for appreciating various modern translations, but if we were
> to reference multiple versions of that book in a single concordance,
> and readers looked up the word "voice," they would find that this
> word pointed to crucially different terms in the original text
> (again, depending upon exactly how the translators were employing
> that word in English). This could actually be a *good* thing, of
> course, if it allowed people to see the discrepancies from one
> translation to another; even more so if it made clear the context of
> the original.
And copyright law would be a nightmare, because anything more than a
small quote for review purposes is considered misuse without the
author's permission. That's why compiling all translations into one
book would be almost impossible and a concordance might be a problem
Mike Leavitt ac998_@_lafn._org remove -'s