Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Browse Groups

• ## Re: [GTh] Do Lines 69-70 and 280 Belong Together?

(3)
• NextPrevious
• ... From: Michael Grondin To: Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] The Monad as
Message 1 of 3 , Feb 5, 2005
View Source
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: [GTh] The Monad as Father

> As I recall, I asked you what you thought of the symbolism that I
suggested.
> You think the suggested symbolism is incorrect. OK, fine, but that doesn't
> alter the fact that 280 is intended to be put together with 69-70. That's
> indicated by numerical and syntactical pointers, and is independent of
> whatever symbolism can be found for it. In other words, it doesn't matter
> what the joining of these segments might have MEANT (though it'd be
> interesting to know) - the brute fact is that the authors intended them to
> be put together.

The hypothesis that line 280 is to be put together with 69-70 must surmount
at least four hurdles before one can justifiably say that "the brute fact is
that the authors intended them to be put together." First, one needs to
establish that lines 69-70 are a meaningful pair. Second, one needs to
establish that line 280 has linkages with lines 69-70. Third, one needs to
demonstrate that one possible explanation for these linkages is that these
three lines are meant to belong together. Fourth, one needs to demonstrate
that this explanation is more plausible than alternative explanations (the
most obvious alternative explanation perhaps being that at least some, if
not all, of the linkages are coincidental rather than intentionally meant to
exist by the author(s)).

Let us turn to the first hurdle, i.e., the need to establish that lines
69-70 constitute a meaningful pair. This is not self-evident, for line 69
contains the end of one saying (i.e., 10) and the beginning of a second
saying (i.e., 11) and, furthermore, the second saying does not end at line
70 but continues into later lines.

Here is what the situation looks like from material imported from Michael
Grondin's post of 11-6-2002 post entitled, "The End":
67: Jesus says: I have cast fire upon-
68: the world (cosmos), and behold! I watch over it/him
69: (until it lights/burns). Jesus says: This heaven/sky will pass
70: away, and she who is above her will pass away
71: and those who are dead they live not, and those who live

In that post, here is the beginning of the argument for severing 69 from
67-68, "Notice that the Coptic word on line 69 is separable from lines
67-68. That is, lines 67 and 68 make sense without it. Furthermore, there's
a stroke mark at the end of line 68, perhaps suggesting a semantic
separation between that line and the first word on line 69."

The PROBLEM here is that, while lines 67-68 continue to constitute a
complete thought/sentence after the severing, the first part of line 69 is
a phrase, i.e., "until it lights/burns.".

Contrast, in that post, the beginning of the argument for severing line 70
from line 71, "Again, the first two lines of saying 11 (on 69 and 70) are
separable from the remainder of the saying. The fact that the heavens are
going to pass away is one thought, and the stuff about the dead and the
living is another thought."

So, while severing 70 from 71 leaves a complete thought/sentence on both
sides of the severing point, this is NOT the case for severing 68 from 69.
Rather, it leaves a complete thought/sentence only on one side of the
severing line. So, it appears to be illegitimate to sever 68 from 69.

Also indicating this is Luke 12:49, "I came to throw fire on the earth, and
how I wish it were already kindled!" Here, we have a variant on saying 10
and the key point is that it ends with the thought that the fire is not yet
kindled--which indicates that the phrase in the first part of 69 (i.e.,
until it lights/burns) is a legitimate part of saying 10. If so, then it is
illegitimate to sever line 69 from line 68.

Further, IMO, the stroke mark at the end of 68 is not sufficient to overcome
these two objections unless it can be proven that the stroke mark is meant
to signal a severing at that point. However, such proof is not provided so,
IMO, the objections stand.

In the post, the argument for severing 68 from 69 thusly continues, "But the
reader may already have noticed a more significant point: since the entire
text contains 668 lines, line 68 is followed by exactly 600 lines."

However, unless it can be demonstrated that either:
(1) there is meant to also be a severing of 168 from 169, a severing of 268
from from 269, a severing of 368 from 369, a severing of 468 from 469, and a
severing of 568 from 569 (and this is only self-apparent for 468 and 469),
or else that
(2) 600 is uniquely significant, as opposed to 500, 400, 300, 200, and 100,
for signalling a severing point in the text,
this does nothing to overcome the two objections that it is illegitimate to
sever line 68 from 69.

In the post, the argument for severing 68 from 69 thusly continues, "Are
these 600 lines the "world" that Jesus is said here to be watching over? I
suggest that they are."

If so, then 69 can be severed from 68 because 69 begins a meaningful 600
line sequence that ends in 668.

However, this is nothing but an unsupported assertion--for no evidence is
given that anybody in that time-frame ever deemed the number 600 to
symbolize the world. As a result, it does not demonstrate that the
remaining 600 lines symbolize the world and, therefore, it fails to overcome
the two objections that it is illegitimate to sever 69 from 68.

In the post, the argument for severing 68 from 69 thusly continues, "But if
line 668 is the "beginning" of the (inverted) cosmos as I've suggested
previously, then line 69 must be the "end" of the world."

Here, it is assumed to be true what still needs to be demonstrated, i.e.,
that 600 lines symbolize the world. As a result, it fails to overcome the
two objections that it is illegitimate to sever 69 from 68.

Well, enough of this. IMO, it has not yet been demonstrated that 69-70 form
a meaningful pair. This is because (1) it appears to be illegitimate to
sever 69 from 68 because this results in a phrase rather than a complete
thought/sentence in the first part of line 69 and (2) it appears to be
illegitimate to sever 69 from 68 because, judging by Luke 12:49, the first
part of 69 appears to be an integral part of saying 10. Further, there does
not appear to have been sufficient evidence produced to overcome these two
objections. So, IMO, the hypothesis that line 280 is to be put together
with 69-70 hasn't yet even managed to clear this hurdle--which is but the
first of at least four hurdles it needs to clear before one can justifiably
say that "the brute fact is that the authors intended them to be put
together."
.
Frank McCoy
1809 N. English Apt. 15
Maplewood, MN USA 55109
• Frank, Seems to me your strongest objections to the marriage of 280 with 69-70 hinge on the phrase until it kindles at the beginning of line 69. I had
Message 2 of 3 , Feb 5, 2005
View Source
Frank,

Seems to me your strongest objections to the "marriage" of 280 with 69-70
hinge on the phrase 'until it kindles' at the beginning of line 69. I had
thought it might be taken along, but there's also good reason to suppose
that it isn't to be taken along, for its 10 letters seem to be excess
baggage, as it were. The size of 69-70 without it is 46 letters, and the
size of 280 is 24 letters, and 46 + 24 = 70. That seems to be a more
"beneficial" number than 80, so that would seem to recommend leaving 'until
it kindles' on line 69, thus answering your major objection, I take it.

I should also drop the reasoning based on 666, because it's weak. I still
think that lines 67-68 look out over a "world" of 600 lines, split 400+200.
It's possible that "the world" is just the first 400, but it seems to me
more probable that that's the earth. Again, I stress that this is in the
nature of a discovery process, and is not yet a finished product or fixed
position ready for journal publication. So you needn't mount an elegant
starched-collar formal argument against it. Loosen up that collar, man!

Mike Grondin
• ... From: Michael Grondin To: Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 10:40 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Do Lines 69-70
Message 3 of 3 , Feb 6, 2005
View Source
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Do Lines 69-70 and 280 Belong Together?

>
> Frank,
>
> Seems to me your strongest objections to the "marriage" of 280 with 69-70
> hinge on the phrase 'until it kindles' at the beginning of line 69.

This is the case in my last post, but I perceive a number of other major
difficulties to the idea of "wedding" of 280 with 69-70 that aren't
mentioned in that post.

In that post, I pointed out that the phrase 'until it kindles' indicates, in
two different ways, that 69-70 is not meant to be taken to be a meaningful
line pair. If so, then any hypothesis which has, as a premise, that 69-70
constitute a meaningful line pair, such as the hypothesis that 280 ought to
be wedded to 69-70, is invalid.

> thought it might be taken along, but there's also good reason to suppose
> that it isn't to be taken along, for its 10 letters seem to be excess
> baggage, as it were. The size of 69-70 without it is 46 letters, and the
> size of 280 is 24 letters, and 46 + 24 = 70. That seems to be a more
> "beneficial" number than 80, so that would seem to recommend leaving
'until
> it kindles' on line 69, thus answering your major objection, I take it.

This phrase is the end of saying 10. What is suggested above, then, is, in
essence, that line 69ought to be severed after the end of saying 10--thereby
dividing it into two parts: (1) 69a, the end of saying 10 and (2) 69b, the
beginning.of saying 11.

Why not, as a working hypothesis, set up these two rules?
1. Two adjacent lines can be severed from each other only when there is a
complete thought/sentence on both sides of the severing point.
2. A line can be severed into two parts only when a saying ends in the
middle of the line and, in this case, further, the line can only be severed
in-between the end of the one saying and the beginning of the next one.

In this case, rule 2 means that one can sever line 69 into a 69a unit
consisting of the end of saying 10 and a 69b unit consisting of the
beginning of saying 11 and rule 1 means that line 70 can be severed from
line 71--thereby making transportable 69b-70.

In this case, in the solving of the word-puzzle, no operation can be in
violation of either of these two rules.

> I should also drop the reasoning based on 666, because it's weak. I still
> think that lines 67-68 look out over a "world" of 600 lines, split
400+200.
> It's possible that "the world" is just the first 400, but it seems to me
> more probable that that's the earth.

Perhaps it would be best to find out what numbers, *at the time*, were
associated with "world" and with "earth". If, *at the time*, there were
some who associated 600 with "world" and "400" with "earth", then it might
be worthwhile to pursue this line of thought--particularly if these people
included some early Christians. Otherwise, IMO, this line of thought is too
implausible to warrant further consideration..

>Again, I stress that this is in the
> nature of a discovery process, and is not yet a finished product or fixed
> position ready for journal publication. So you needn't mount an elegant
> starched-collar formal argument against it. Loosen up that collar, man!

"Elegant"? I'm too overwhelmed by this compliment to respond any further.

Frank McCoy
1809 N. English Apt 15
Maplewood, MN 55109
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.