Follow up on "Gimme What's Mine"
- (My aplogies if this is a duplicate post)
Just as a FWIW, from my analysis there are 34 lines in the text where that
line and the preceding 3 lines have a total of 100 letters. Among those 34
lines only 1 [Line 487] has the same chiastic structure you have proposed
for lines 598-601
7 52 85 116 135 137 180 197 232 233 256 258 260 266 301 305 308 311 345 346 347 366 370 388 465 472 475 487 488 494 500 529 541 559 585 589 631 641
As an additional FWIW, among those same 34 lines there are:
4 instances where there is a pattern 26 24 25 25; [4 line groups
culminating at lines 232,256,305 346]
3 instances with the pattern 24 24 26 26; [groups culminating at lines
311, 472, 488]
2 instances of 24 25 25 26 [groups culminating at lines 233, 347]
2 instances of 25 25 26 24 [groups culminating at lines 260, 500]
2 instances of 24 25 27 24 [groups culminating at lines 370, 541]
The remainder of the lines all exhibit unique combinations.
I'm unable to comment of the significance (or lack thereof) of any of this.
- Hi Rick-
I certainly appreciate your efforts, but the results of the programmatic
survey of line sizes indicates the shortcomings of that method. Given
that the average line-size in CGTh is a little over 25 letters, we would
expect to find a significant number of four-line sets that total 100 lines,
and that's what was found. But if one is looking for NBX's (numerically-
based chiastic structures), the program needs to conform to the rule
of NBX's that no word-splitting is allowed (else everything would be an
NBX). Case in point is the four-line set 484-487. Although the line sizes
are right for a 2nd-degree NBX with no midpoint (26,24,24,26), the word
'phortion' is split between lines 485 and 486, so the whole isn't an NBX.
I notice also that none of the four-line sets you mention is a complete
saying, or even a complete thought, in itself. In contrast, the four-line
chiasmus that can be naturally constructed out of L100, when one
removes 100.4, is a complete saying - and one that of course accords
with (and hence provides support for) the widespread belief that 100.4
is a late redaction of L100. But L100's hidden chiasmus wouldn't have
been detected by any computer program looking at line-sizes.
L100 is notable also for being one of the nine single-saying blocks
in CGTh (out of 24 sayings-blocks). In fact, it's surrounded by two
others - the six-line SSB's L99 and L101 (neither of which has 'IS'.)
One of the things that's interesting to me about all this is that this
is the first indication I've come across that we may be able to
figure out from internal evidence alone what the Copts did to their
source version of GTh. We don't know why yet, of course, but since
CGTh is the only whole ms that we have of GTh, it won't do to ignore
what appear to be singularities in that ms which may not have been
shared by other versions of GTh. Or - in the alternative - if those
features which appear to be unique to Coptic Thomas were in fact
shared by other versions of GTh, then that may tell us something
quite important about the nature, purpose, and use of Gos.Thom.
p.s. Welcome to newcomers Christopher Skinner and Brandon Wason!