Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10864Re: [GTh] A question concerning this calculation to isopsephy

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grondin
    Mar 24, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      [John Moon:]
      > 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", unless
      the case of logion 100 indicates a general pattern of it making sense to
      separate canonical from non-canonical content in sayings that contain both.
      > I ... could see how "later readers" of the original document
      > rearrange things such as word order and even verses,,,,,,,in
      order to Hide
      > the numerical values.(at a later date). Someone or group with
      knowledge of
      > an original Thomas, might subtly alter the text or the verse
      order to Hide then
      > reveal a secret ( which might be their belief system),or a key to
      the original words.
      That's one possibility, though not very likely IMO.
      > I would be looking for something which a reader would sound out in the
      > Something that was readily apparent. The meter( As in poem) or a
      clear number
      > of words on a line,( even or odd). Or lines containing a certain
      word or phrase.
      > 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 meeting
      your 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, if
      the 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 letters
      which makes sense. Something like that, maybe?
      > Without some sort of “proof" That the isopsephy is in fact apparent or
      > one could come up with false meanings, ones never intended.So.
      How do we know?
      Just like any textual exegesis, you look at probabilities. Is it likely that the composers
      of CGT would be interested in the isopsephic value of the names of Jesus? I think
      it's safe to say that the answer is 'yes'. With respect to the Coptic prologue, is it
      likely 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.
      > If as you say the practice is inaudible, and invisible, are we not
      simply being asked
      > to accept that it must be so because in some other documents it
      does occur?
      No. 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 writers 
      were also interested in the concepts of 'name' and 'number'. It lends plausibility
      to our view of Coptic Thomas, but isn't the whole of the case.
      > 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 letters
      in the Coptic prologue is easy (though the structure is difficult to discern.)
      With respect to the macro compositional features such as the use of Greek
      words, I've clarified recently that that probably wasn't something for even
      the enlightened reader to discover.
      > I suppose i am looking for something more that it[] probably or could
      be the
      > case. Proof that it would be possible to discern the practice for
      the reader the
      > common man who picked up and read Thomas, or perhaps heard it
      read in a
      > group. Consider, How many people who actual[l]y read the
      Gospel of Thomas
      > 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 a
      If by 'proof' you mean something certain beyond any doubt, your standard
      is way too high. No critical analysis of any text could meet it.
      > What about the practice in surrounding documents found in the
      same group
      > of document? Written perhaps by the same group or even same
      That's a possibility, but far from being easier than analyzing Coptic Thomas,
      it would be more difficult - for a number of reasons, including that Coptic
      Thomas is much better preserved (i.e., has fewer lacunae) than other tractates.
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic