Translating the Gospel of Philip: Knee Deep in Lacunae

I'm moving into an intensive phase of work on The Gospel of Philip: Annotated and Explained. I have a draft introduction, draft translation and sheaves of notes for the commentary. Now I have to turn them into something readable. The translation has been quite tricky, and much more difficult than the Gospel of Thomas translation I did a couple of years ago. My Copic isn't good enough to do a straight translation, so I've had to rely on Paterson Brown's interlinear translation of Philip more than I would have wished to. You can see his pages on Philip here: http://www.metalog.org/files/philip.html
But there are a number of problems with his renderings, and also he uses Walter Till's Coptic text of Philip, which has been superceded by Bentley Layton's. Still, it's a valuable resource, and he has dynamic links to Crum's dictionary and Plumley's grammar. He also covers the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Truth.

It's raining lacunae here. A lacuna is a gap in the text of a manuscript. These are generally caused by physical damage to the manuscript, though a lacuna may be passed on in the copying process, by inadvertently missing out text, or by copying from a manuscript that is itself damaged, for instance. There are a couple of examples of this in the Gospel of Thomas--saying 101 comes to mind, but nothing on the scale of the lacunae in Philip. Several of Philip's "sayings" (which aren't sayings in the way that Thomas' are, but it's a convenient term) are riddled with lacunae. Of course, they have to be translated, but it's a tedious process when I know that I will just have gobbledegook in the end for about 10% of Philip. Still, there are worse examples in the Nag Hammadi texts. The Dialogue of the Saviour seems to have pages of ellipses in its translation, and the (non-Nag Hammadi) Gospel of Mary is in a pretty poor state. Oh well, I should be looking at the donut and not the hole.