Re: New Member
--- In email@example.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...> wrote:
> OR... It could be entirely possible that the Coptic original had a
> mistake. Yep, could be.
Well, if you're gonna go and answer your own questions, you obviously don't need me around. ;-)
I guess we could all at least be thankful that it doesn't depend on what the definition of "is" is, but there is still a lot to take into account. Naturally, the "Coptic original" I referred to was merely the source document for the modern scholars who worked on translating the various texts of the NHL, as opposed to others who compose their own interpretations based on translations that have already been made in modern languages. Of course, from the perspective of the actual author (not the Coptic scribe) of the text in question, what seems like an ancient "original" to us would likely be seen as but an imperfect copy.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "janahooks" <janahooks@...> wrote:
> [. . .]
> Gerry and Lady C.,thanks for all of the info and links.
Thank you, Jana, for noticing them.
> Gerry, after looking at the National Geographic link, I was
> reminded of some suggestions I gave you on faded writing. I'm feeling
> really good about watery sepia ink and sandpaper...and sand
> horizontally and vertically...with the gray sandpaper...
And ya know, that was the one suggestion you wrote me that I was the most hesitant to attempt. There's something about the dual-layered papyrus and its almost glossy sheen that made me wonder if such coarse measures would destroy the whole thing, but the more I've thought about it (along with your renewed convictions), the more I believe it would indeed yield a desirable finish. I imagine the weathered results would be akin to repeatedly wadding up a sheet of paper to the point that it becomes more like a thin piece of cloth rather than a crisp piece of paper. Only this way, you avoid the wrinkles!