10864Re: [GTh] A question concerning this calculation to isopsephy
- Mar 24, 2014[John Moon:]
a[s]> MY reasoning is that we are looking for the original words as well> something which is right before our face (To the reader).I don't see any hope right now of getting at "the original words", unlessthe case of logion 100 indicates a general pattern of it making sense toseparate canonical from non-canonical content in sayings that contain both.
“might"> I ... could see how "later readers" of the original document
order to Hide> rearrange things such as word order and even verses,,,,,,,in
knowledge of> the numerical values.(at a later date). Someone or group with
order to Hide then> an original Thomas, might subtly alter the text or the verse
the original words.> reveal a secret ( which might be their belief system),or a key toThat's one possibility, though not very likely IMO.
text.> I would be looking for something which a reader would sound out in the
clear number> Something that was readily apparent. The meter( As in poem) or a
word or phrase.> of words on a line,( even or odd). Or lines containing a certain> Something which is apparent.But anything apparent isn't hidden, is it? It especially can't be "readily apparent".I haven't run across anything having to do with sound, but how's this for meetingyour expectation of "lines containing a certain word or phrase": lines 70 and 280(notice that 280-70=210) end with the same word (PARAGE). Furthermore, ifthe contents of line 69 starting with 'Jesus said' are joined with lines 70 and 280(which is a one-line saying), you've got a 3-line structure containing 70 letterswhich makes sense. Something like that, maybe?
intentional> Without some sort of “proof" That the isopsephy is in fact apparent or
How do we know?> one could come up with false meanings, ones never intended.So.Just like any textual exegesis, you look at probabilities. Is it likely that the composersof CGT would be interested in the isopsephic value of the names of Jesus? I thinkit's safe to say that the answer is 'yes'. With respect to the Coptic prologue, is itlikely that its letter-based chiastic structure is a random coincidence? I'd say not.(Notice that it requires the use of a different name for Thomas than in the Greek.)Is it likely that it's just a coincidence that the number of nomina sacra for 'Jesus' (105)is closely related to the values of IS (210) and ThWMAS (1050)? Again, I'd say not.
simply being asked> If as you say the practice is inaudible, and invisible, are we not
does occur?> to accept that it must be so because in some other documents itNo. I suppose you're alluding to the discussion of Rev and the Fourth Gospel.What that is is supporting collateral evidence that other early Christian writerswere also interested in the concepts of 'name' and 'number'. It lends plausibilityto our view of Coptic Thomas, but isn't the whole of the case.
count> If the reader is not expected to count the words? Why would he also> their numerical value? Which is far more difficult.Calculating the isopsephic value of 'IS', e.g., is a snap. Counting the lettersin the Coptic prologue is easy (though the structure is difficult to discern.)With respect to the macro compositional features such as the use of Greekwords, I've clarified recently that that probably wasn't something for eventhe enlightened reader to discover.
be the> I suppose i am looking for something more that it probably or could
the reader the> case. Proof that it would be possible to discern the practice for
read in a> common man who picked up and read Thomas, or perhaps heard it
Gospel of Thomas> group. Consider, How many people who actual[l]y read the> were educated in mathematics?Doesn't matter. As Thomas itself implies, its secrets are for the few, not the many.
> I am following this with interest, but still looking for aproof.If by 'proof' you mean something certain beyond any doubt, your standardis way too high. No critical analysis of any text could meet it.
same group> What about the practice in surrounding documents found in the
hand?> of document? Written perhaps by the same group or even sameThat's a possibility, but far from being easier than analyzing Coptic Thomas,it would be more difficult - for a number of reasons, including that CopticThomas is much better preserved (i.e., has fewer lacunae) than other tractates.Mike
- << Previous post in topic