Re: [GTh] Re: A Closer Look at NBX's
- Hi Rick,
Spot on about the unusual textual situation of GThom. If there's anything
comparable, I'm not aware of it. I'm looking forward to the time when
the numerically-based features of Coptic Thomas are widely recognized
and we can start thrashing out the implications of that. What we do know
already, I think, is that the prologue to the Greek version isn't chiastic,
and that the Greek version has nothing comparable to the set of words
from a second language that occurs in the Coptic.
As it happens, I was just about to write to the list that I came up with an
English-language NBX today that's sorta like the Prologue to Coptic
Thomas, and has the same structure. Here it is:
> These are the / words Jesus (11+10=21)One of the differences (aside from words that couldn't be fit in) is that
> spoke them / and / wrote them (9+3+9=21)
> did the twin / Judas Thomas. (10+11=21)
this English NBX is missing one of the signs of intentionality present
in the Coptic, namely the use of the sacred name 'IS' - the numeric
value of which (210) explains why the number 21 features twice over
in the structure: first as the size of each of the three lines, and
secondly (and independently) as the product of the number of lines
times the number of segments (3x7).
It also occurred to me that one could take certain WBX's (not all of
them, but some) and convert them into NBX's. The key is to find a
WBX that has chunks of words of an appropriate size, e.g.:
> Never be / kissed by / a fool  never be / fooled by / a kiss.This is not yet an NBX. What I've done here is to arbitrarily segment the
WBX so that it has different-sized segments, specifically 7, 8, and 5.
(Different-sized segments seems to be required to make NBX's analogous
to WBX's.) The brackets in the middle represent a possible mid-point.
If it's filled in with a word like 'and' or 'but', then the thing will have
a mid-point. If it's simply filled in with a semi-colon to separate the two
parts, then it won't.
So far, we have the numeric series 7-8-5--7-8-5. That's not an NBX.
What we need is 7-8-5--5-8-7. That requires an imaginative - but
I think not ungrammatical - change:
> Never be / kissed by / a fool  a kiss / fooled by / never be.No doubt not as effective as the original, but I think this kind of
transformation is kinda interesting. It needs to be added, though,
that this structure in itself doesn't have any indications of
intentionality. If we saw it in a natural setting, we'd probably
conclude (rightly, I think) that it was accidental.