- --- In email@example.com, "marinas_snake"
>Good help is always appreciated, Marina.
> Gerry, I bet you would get a lot of help from your friends if you
> ever decided to tackle that task, (if you would need any help that
For such a collaborative effort though, we would probably have to
dispense with references to the original texts and simply rely on the
modern translations that are readily available to all of us . . .
such as . . . the on-line texts at The Gnosis Archive. If copyright
permissions allowed, one could duplicate each text with a reformatted
version, indicating the original codex, page, and line numbers
throughout the modern version. At least that would offer a common
point of reference (since our browsers and screens display those
pages differently), even if Coptic and Greek terms were not included
in the project initially.
The thing is, this isn't much different from what most of us already
Using the Google search feature at the Gnosis Archive Library.
Searching each hit that turns up with our browser's Edit/Find tool
to locate each occurrence of the term we're looking for within any of
This can be tedious, yes, but then, so is composing a proper
- 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