IS XS: No Jesus or Christ spelled out in early MSS

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: XC for Lord in a couple of Coptic texts and ⲥ︦ⲇ︦ϩ︦ for Jesus in others

Post by MrMacSon »

My takeaway summary:
mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
[...You did set me on the wrong foot there with the X instead of the djanja, but hey - I should have noticed the reference to Peter and Mary]

This last word ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ starts with the djanja Ϫ , not the X that we know from "normal languages": Ϫ Ⲭ - check the difference.
.
ok, gotcha (though Miosi had XΟΕΙϹ in his article, copy-paste of the relevant paragraph from that pdf provided ϪΟΕΙϹ and copy-paste of ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ provided ϪϹ - ie. without the superlinear line - but I went off to https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/coptic.htm and made it ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ - Doh! (I blame concurrently watching Aryna Sabalenka starting to match it with Elena Rybakina in the second set: amazing tennis).

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
About Acts of Peter

We find the Acts in the Berolinensis Gnosticus 8502, and this word [ ϪΟΕΙϹ ] occurs 5 times:
BG 10,11.12.17; 131,13; 138,19

I struggle with that as the BG for Peter starts at 128, but the first leaf is Mary's. But indeed 131:13 has ϫ̅ⲥ̅ according to the transcription yet I can't locate the BG papyrus, even though it is almost certain that no mistake could possibly have been made here, yet this would be the single exception to anything that I'm aware off (which arguably is not a lot but still more than most).

And likewise the transcription for 138:18 contains ϫ̅ⲥ̅ - and this is as rare as it is unprecedented, as argued below.

Mary then? Yes, 10:11,12 and 17 contain the same - and it is stupendous really, and if only I could find the papyrus although there can be very little doubt that it will likely have what it is stated

About Eugnostos / Sophia

A different case of "abbreviation" would be a misunderstanding introduced by Brill:

NHC III,4 Xrhstos.png
NHC III,4 Xrhstos.png (18.88 KiB) Viewed 510 times

And here you see what I put in my mind when I read this post: it would seem that ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ should be read as ϫ̅ⲥ̅ here
.
Which ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ should be read as ϫ̅ⲥ̅ here ?
The third one referring to the first? Thus?:


ⲭⲣⲓⲧⲟⲥ . ⲭ︦ⲣ︦ⲥ︦ III 104,22. ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ BG 99,9.16: 101,9; ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ where it is perhaps an
...error for
[ϫ̅ⲥ̅] (ie. ⲭⲟεⲓⲥ , q.v.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ in BG 112,15 four times, and 112,17 twice
...is clearly an error.) See further ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ
.
.

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
which is quite the (dumb-ass) assumption because we would be having two phenomena here in that case: an extremely rare (and wholly unprecedented) occurrence of ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ being abbreviated for the first time ever since the coming of mankind...NEXT TO the fact that either the full or the abbreviated form of ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ is being treated as 'a thingy' by placing a whole superlinear on all the letters involved. I mean look at it, I got these from the Coptic keyboard and the djanja can't even have a superlinear, it is awfully skewed compared to the sigma
.
Just as well I didn't try putting a superlinear over the djanja - Ϫ - !

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
What motivates this ignorant assumption? Well, the different versions of one and the same text that are being discussed here:

NHL_CodexIII-BG117-Lord-XS.png
NHL_CodexIII-BG117-Lord-XS.png (142.54 KiB) Viewed 510 times

From the very top, left to right, diplomatic transcription and translation where the left text is leading:

Said-she to-him, namely Mariham(me)
: Oh the-master / the -XS
your-disciples have-they-come whence or
they-will {go} whence or they-will-do them
in-that-lace .

ⲃⲱⲕ is present in the text on the right and represented by {go} in the one on the left

So what we have here is a very simple case of one text using "kurios" as vocative, and the other using XS - and naturally I have counted this as such in my detailed outlining of all IS and XS in the entire NHL

There is no mistake here at all whatsoever, no misspelling, no anomaly - this is a very human and grammatically sublime case of redaction, whether intentional or not, because stories happen to get told also, and it is evident that these two stories diverge although this sample here is very verbatim - but on the same page they fan out, and it is certain that one does not serve as scribal source for the other in any way

[AGAIN, I got it wrong and there indeed are 5 cases where ϫ̅ⲥ̅ is abbreviated and even contains superlinears, and Miosi missed this but so did I; yet these are confined to one single MS, while more than most interesting indeed]
.

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
Hi Mac, let's discuss the words first:

ⲥⲁϩ - https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3982

Look at the bottom of that page there and it is evident that the verb plays a most significant role: 'writer', from ⲥϩⲁⲓ - https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3972

ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ - https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C7376

And that's the Coptic default for master, lord, owner (of the household), etc. Naturally we owe 'lord' to a more complicated system of ownership, namely that of feudalism / heraldy / kingdomry whatever, but there is only one binary to all of this: me master, you slave. And the more subtle relation is between a teacher and his student, a master of arts and his apprentice, etc, and perhaps a 'writer' specifies the manner in which someone masters someone else.
.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: XC for Lord in a couple of Coptic texts and ⲥ︦ⲇ︦ϩ︦ for Jesus in others

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:03 pm My takeaway summary:
mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
[...You did set me on the wrong foot there with the X instead of the djanja, but hey - I should have noticed the reference to Peter and Mary]

This last word ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ starts with the djanja Ϫ , not the X that we know from "normal languages": Ϫ Ⲭ - check the difference.
.
ok, gotcha (though Miosi had XΟΕΙϹ in his article, copy-paste of the relevant paragraph from that pdf provided ϪΟΕΙϹ and copy-paste of ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ provided ϪϹ - ie. without the superlinear line - but I went off to https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/coptic.htm and made it ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ - Doh! (I blame concurrently watching Aryna Sabalenka starting to match it with Elena Rybakina in the second set: amazing tennis).

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
About Acts of Peter

We find the Acts in the Berolinensis Gnosticus 8502, and this word [ ϪΟΕΙϹ ] occurs 5 times:
BG 10,11.12.17; 131,13; 138,19

I struggle with that as the BG for Peter starts at 128, but the first leaf is Mary's. But indeed 131:13 has ϫ̅ⲥ̅ according to the transcription yet I can't locate the BG papyrus, even though it is almost certain that no mistake could possibly have been made here, yet this would be the single exception to anything that I'm aware off (which arguably is not a lot but still more than most).

And likewise the transcription for 138:18 contains ϫ̅ⲥ̅ - and this is as rare as it is unprecedented, as argued below.

Mary then? Yes, 10:11,12 and 17 contain the same - and it is stupendous really, and if only I could find the papyrus although there can be very little doubt that it will likely have what it is stated

About Eugnostos / Sophia

A different case of "abbreviation" would be a misunderstanding introduced by Brill:


NHC III,4 Xrhstos.png


And here you see what I put in my mind when I read this post: it would seem that ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ should be read as ϫ̅ⲥ̅ here
.
Which ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ should be read as ϫ̅ⲥ̅ here ?
The third one referring to the first? Thus?:


ⲭⲣⲓⲧⲟⲥ . ⲭ︦ⲣ︦ⲥ︦ III 104,22. ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ BG 99,9.16: 101,9; ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ where it is perhaps an
...error for
[ϫ̅ⲥ̅] (ie. ⲭⲟεⲓⲥ , q.v.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ in BG 112,15 four times, and 112,17 twice
...is clearly an error.) See further ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ
.
.

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
which is quite the (dumb-ass) assumption because we would be having two phenomena here in that case: an extremely rare (and wholly unprecedented) occurrence of ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ being abbreviated for the first time ever since the coming of mankind...NEXT TO the fact that either the full or the abbreviated form of ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ is being treated as 'a thingy' by placing a whole superlinear on all the letters involved. I mean look at it, I got these from the Coptic keyboard and the djanja can't even have a superlinear, it is awfully skewed compared to the sigma
.
Just as well I didn't try putting a superlinear over the djanja - Ϫ - !

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
What motivates this ignorant assumption? Well, the different versions of one and the same text that are being discussed here:


NHL_CodexIII-BG117-Lord-XS.png


From the very top, left to right, diplomatic transcription and translation where the left text is leading:

Said-she to-him, namely Mariham(me)
: Oh the-master / the -XS
your-disciples have-they-come whence or
they-will {go} whence or they-will-do them
in-that-lace .

ⲃⲱⲕ is present in the text on the right and represented by {go} in the one on the left

So what we have here is a very simple case of one text using "kurios" as vocative, and the other using XS - and naturally I have counted this as such in my detailed outlining of all IS and XS in the entire NHL

There is no mistake here at all whatsoever, no misspelling, no anomaly - this is a very human and grammatically sublime case of redaction, whether intentional or not, because stories happen to get told also, and it is evident that these two stories diverge although this sample here is very verbatim - but on the same page they fan out, and it is certain that one does not serve as scribal source for the other in any way

[AGAIN, I got it wrong and there indeed are 5 cases where ϫ̅ⲥ̅ is abbreviated and even contains superlinears, and Miosi missed this but so did I; yet these are confined to one single MS, while more than most interesting indeed]
.

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
Hi Mac, let's discuss the words first:

ⲥⲁϩ - https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3982

Look at the bottom of that page there and it is evident that the verb plays a most significant role: 'writer', from ⲥϩⲁⲓ - https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3972

ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ - https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C7376

And that's the Coptic default for master, lord, owner (of the household), etc. Naturally we owe 'lord' to a more complicated system of ownership, namely that of feudalism / heraldy / kingdomry whatever, but there is only one binary to all of this: me master, you slave. And the more subtle relation is between a teacher and his student, a master of arts and his apprentice, etc, and perhaps a 'writer' specifies the manner in which someone masters someone else.
.
Ah, women tennis! I well remember the first grunts being uttered in the 90's, it was ... most peculiar.
Lemme make this short:

1. Yes, Miosi made many errors, including writing ⲣⲱⲙⲉ as ⲣⲟⲙⲉ - what a dupe
2. I got you all wrong and went raging against the machine, which was with regards to the BG on Eugnostos / Sophia, which actually is entirely unrelated to any of what you said, so forget about it
3. Yes, 5 enormously preciously rare cases of Lawd superlineared so to say, very awesome detective work by you - sincere thanks for that
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: XC for Lord in a couple of Coptic texts and ⲥ︦ⲇ︦ϩ︦ for Jesus in others

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:40 pm
Lemme make this short:

1. Yes, Miosi made many errors, including writing ⲣⲱⲙⲉ as ⲣⲟⲙⲉ - what a dupe

3. Yes, 5 enormously preciously rare cases of Lawd superlineared so to say, very awesome detective work by you - sincere thanks for that
.
Specifically(?):
Lawd superlineared in the Coptic as a nomen sacrum: ϫ̅ⲥ̅
(which is not in Miosi's Table 2)

I've edited my first post about this:
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:30 am
Edited due to subsequent discussions

From Terry Miosi's paper, Nomina Sacra and the Nag Hammadi Library:


Robinson’s publication of the Nag Hammadi texts contains some documents that are not part of the NH codex. Two of these are the Act of Peter and the 'Gospel' of Mary. There are numerous occurrences of the word ϪΟΕΙϹ, ‘Lord’, in 35 of the NH texts, and not once is the term abbreviated. Both of these texts use the abbreviated form ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ ϫ̅ⲥ̅. The recently discovered Gospel of Judas also uses the abbreviation ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ ϫ̅ⲥ̅ and adds to it ⲛ︦ϯ︦, an abbreviation for ΝΟΥΤΕ, ‘God’, which occurs in 48 of the Nag Hammadi texts without once being abbreviated.
The Gospel of Judas also contains a new word that, given the presence of the horizontal stroke, appears to be treated as a nomina sacra: ⲥ︦ⲇ︦ϩ︦ , ‘Teacher’, in reference to Jesus.30

https://www.academia.edu/62705949/Nomin ... di_Library

30 ϹΑϨ occurs in ten of the NH codices as an appellation of Jesus; e.g., [in] the Teachings of Silvanus where he is called the “divine teacher” (VII 96,31) and “God and Teacher” (VII 100, 18); the Dialogue of the Saviour (III 142, 25) and The Gospel of Thomas (L13) where he is referred to as ϹΑϨ in direct speech.


What might the significance of this be? ie. that Act of Peter and the 'Gospel' of Mary use ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ for 'Lord'.

Are these the only places in early Christian that ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ does not mean 'Christ' ?


eta:
ϫ̅ⲥ̅ is what should be there: as a nomen sacrum for ϪΟΕΙϹ, not XΟΕΙϹ

( 'Gospel' in 'Gospel' of Mary is in inverted commas b/c it is one of the few texts called a gospel which either does not refer to Jesus or is not primarily about him )
.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: XC for Lord in a couple of Coptic texts and ⲥ︦ⲇ︦ϩ︦ for Jesus in others

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:02 pm
mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:40 pm
Lemme make this short:

1. Yes, Miosi made many errors, including writing ⲣⲱⲙⲉ as ⲣⲟⲙⲉ - what a dupe

3. Yes, 5 enormously preciously rare cases of Lawd superlineared so to say, very awesome detective work by you - sincere thanks for that
.
Specifically(?):
Lawd superlineared in the Coptic as a nomen sacrum: ϫ̅ⲥ̅
(which is not in Miosi's Table 2)

I've edited my first post about this:
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:30 am
Edited due to subsequent discussions

From Terry Miosi's paper, Nomina Sacra and the Nag Hammadi Library:


Robinson’s publication of the Nag Hammadi texts contains some documents that are not part of the NH codex. Two of these are the Act of Peter and the 'Gospel' of Mary. There are numerous occurrences of the word ϪΟΕΙϹ, ‘Lord’, in 35 of the NH texts, and not once is the term abbreviated. Both of these texts use the abbreviated form ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ ϫ̅ⲥ̅. The recently discovered Gospel of Judas also uses the abbreviation ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ ϫ̅ⲥ̅ and adds to it ⲛ︦ϯ︦, an abbreviation for ΝΟΥΤΕ, ‘God’, which occurs in 48 of the Nag Hammadi texts without once being abbreviated.
The Gospel of Judas also contains a new word that, given the presence of the horizontal stroke, appears to be treated as a nomina sacra: ⲥ︦ⲇ︦ϩ︦ , ‘Teacher’, in reference to Jesus.30

https://www.academia.edu/62705949/Nomin ... di_Library

30 ϹΑϨ occurs in ten of the NH codices as an appellation of Jesus; e.g., [in] the Teachings of Silvanus where he is called the “divine teacher” (VII 96,31) and “God and Teacher” (VII 100, 18); the Dialogue of the Saviour (III 142, 25) and The Gospel of Thomas (L13) where he is referred to as ϹΑϨ in direct speech.


What might the significance of this be? ie. that Act of Peter and the 'Gospel' of Mary use ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ for 'Lord'.

Are these the only places in early Christian that ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ does not mean 'Christ' ?


eta:
ϫ̅ⲥ̅ is what should be there: as a nomen sacrum for ϪΟΕΙϹ, not XΟΕΙϹ

( 'Gospel' in 'Gospel' of Mary is in inverted commas b/c it is one of the few texts called a gospel which either does not refer to Jesus or is not primarily about him )
.
Oh gawds Mac I almost have to throw up at all the colouring.
Yes you have my blessing regarding your correct corrections here, which makes you a whole lot more percise than Miosi.
In related news, he's about 10-20% off in general so don't fret, he also missed the full IHSOUS in Melchizedek LOL. I stopped counting after a while and believe I have done more prceise math somewhere but I can't find it at the mo
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: XC for Lord in a couple of Coptic texts and ⲥ︦ⲇ︦ϩ︦ for Jesus in others

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Oh gawds Mac ... all the colouring
  • I'm trying to replicate the outfit Aryna Sabalenka was wearing :D
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: XC for Lord in a couple of Coptic texts and ⲥ︦ⲇ︦ϩ︦ for Jesus in others

Post by Leucius Charinus »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:30 am n.b.
The Act of Peter is different to the Acts of Peter

The Act of Peter is a brief miracle text celebrating virginity that is found in the 5th-century papyrus Berlin Codex (Berolinensis Gnosticus 8502) ... this brief Act expresses, in a characteristically extreme form, the cult of virginity in the male-dominated 5th-century Christian Church, a cultural thread that may also be detected in many early Acta of female martyrs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Peter

Sorry to temporarily wander away from the tennis and the Christless and Jesusless early Christian manuscripts - both canonical and apocryphal - but seeing that this little mentioned and rarely discussed text has been mentioned, has anyone actually read this "Act of Peter"?


The "Act of Peter" appears to be some sort of satire against Peter.

At the end Peter rises and goes into his house.
Leaving his palsied daughter outside,
curled up in the corner -- and forgotten.
What sort of man is this apostle Peter?

The fourth century author of this "Act of Peter" appears to me to be a parodist / satirist.
The head of the "Christian apostles" is depicted as demented.
He heals the multitude but keeps his daughter in her infirmity.
(It is expedient for him to do so !!! ) (See the txt)

He has forgotten that his daughter has a life.
He is concerned with the ministry of healing.
But he forgets his own daughter.
Peter will not permit his daughter to heal and love life ...
He has some deep psychological problem.

Read through the story. It isn't a long story:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/NC%20 ... Coptic.htm

If you don't think the author is being highly polemical against Peter let me know.
annotate
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:30 pm

Re: IS XS: No Jesus or Christ spelled out in early MSS

Post by annotate »

I inquired to chat ai concerning mlinssen's statement. See below the result.

mlinssen in quotes: "there are 102 occurrences of IS in the gospel of Thomas and 3 that say IHS". What does IS and IHS translate to?

In the Gospel of Thomas, the term "IS" is likely a reference to the Greek word "εἰμί" (eimi), which means "I am" or "I exist." It is a common phrase used by Jesus in the gospel to describe his divine nature and relationship with God.

The term "IHS" is an abbreviation for the Greek name of Jesus, "ΙΗΣΟΥΣ" (Iēsous). It is sometimes written with a bar above the letters, forming a symbol that is commonly used in Christian iconography. The origin of this symbol is not entirely clear, but it may have been used as a shorthand for the name of Jesus in the early Christian church.

It's worth noting that the Gospel of Thomas is not a canonical gospel and is not recognized by all Christian denominations as authoritative scripture.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: IS XS: No Jesus or Christ spelled out in early MSS

Post by mlinssen »

annotate wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:59 am I inquired to chat ai concerning mlinssen's statement. See below the result.

mlinssen in quotes: "there are 102 occurrences of IS in the gospel of Thomas and 3 that say IHS". What does IS and IHS translate to?

In the Gospel of Thomas, the term "IS" is likely a reference to the Greek word "εἰμί" (eimi), which means "I am" or "I exist." It is a common phrase used by Jesus in the gospel to describe his divine nature and relationship with God.

The term "IHS" is an abbreviation for the Greek name of Jesus, "ΙΗΣΟΥΣ" (Iēsous). It is sometimes written with a bar above the letters, forming a symbol that is commonly used in Christian iconography. The origin of this symbol is not entirely clear, but it may have been used as a shorthand for the name of Jesus in the early Christian church.

It's worth noting that the Gospel of Thomas is not a canonical gospel and is not recognized by all Christian denominations as authoritative scripture.
Well, not too bad.
I'd love it to be an abbreviation of something, but the thing is that we first have the ligature, and not a full word until much later - even though what comes before and what comes after is all very hazy in this biblical academic biz!

"not recognized by all Christian denominations as authoritative scripture" - would that mean that there are some that do consider it authoritative?! Even I don't

The explanation is complete nonsense of course, but hey. It makes as much sense as mine
annotate
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:30 pm

Re: IS XS: No Jesus or Christ spelled out in early MSS

Post by annotate »

""not recognized by all Christian denominations as authoritative scripture" - would that mean that there are some that do consider it authoritative?! Even I don't"

I was wondering the same thing myself. I'll have to ask. It notes that the chat ai can be wrong so you can take the answer with a grain of salt or check it out.

Addendum: chat ai say: "However, there are some small groups and individual scholars who regard the Gospel of Thomas as a valuable spiritual text and consider it to be authoritative in some sense. For example, some members of the Gnostic and other esoteric Christian traditions view the Gospel of Thomas as a source of hidden wisdom and insight. Additionally, some liberal or progressive Christian scholars have argued that the Gospel of Thomas offers a unique perspective on the teachings of Jesus and should be considered alongside the canonical gospels."
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: IS XS: No Jesus or Christ spelled out in early MSS

Post by mlinssen »

annotate wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:47 am ""not recognized by all Christian denominations as authoritative scripture" - would that mean that there are some that do consider it authoritative?! Even I don't"

I was wondering the same thing myself. I'll have to ask. It notes that the chat ai can be wrong so you can take the answer with a grain of salt or check it out.
Like everything else in the world, it bases its answers on the information that it has. I had a go on Thomas the other day - like Wikipedia this will be a race of majority numbers. Ah well, it's an inevitable step into the future
Post Reply