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

Re: [GTh] GTh as hermeneiai?

Expand Messages
  • rob perry
    Greetings, and back at you G Thomas Group. The number system that is in use in Thomas and most other religious texts, (Essene, Hebrew, Christian, Chinese,
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 24, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings, and back at you G Thomas Group.
      The number system that is in use in Thomas and most other religious texts, (Essene, Hebrew, Christian, Chinese, Hindu, Muslim, etc., is the same, and is used the same.)

      Aleph ox 1 creative root
      Beth house 2 self conscious, concentration
      Gimel camel 3 subconscious, memory
      Daleth door 4 creativity
      Heh, window 5 reason
      Vau, nail 6 intuition
      Zain, sword 7 discernment, cutting away
      Cheth, fence 8 "reducing down to one idea"
      Teth, Serpent 9 suggestion
      Yod Hand 10 giving
      Kaph, Grasp 20 receiving
      Lamed goad 30 learning, value
      Mem, water 40 suspended thought
      Nun, fish 50 ideas, creative
      Samech, 60 verification, inner debate
      tentpeg
      Ayn, eye 70 limitation, ignorance, humor
      Peh, mouth 80 awakening, discovery, beyond pile of words
      Tzaddhi
      fishhook 90 meditation, gathering of ideas on self, universe
      Qoph, back 100 time sense of moving on, series, "put behind you"
      of head
      Resh, face 200 Face (was head), appearance of hypothesis
      Shin, tooth 300 Decision, judgment
      Tav, Mark 400 Result, mark, accomplishment, administrative ability,

      Now, take these numbers and apply them to text. Use multiplication, subtraction, adding, and division. For example number 103 has the numbers
      4 x 25 plus 3, written in the text.
      Every single religious text has this pattern of use.

      Rob Perry
    • Andrew Smith
      Stevan Davies once wrote a paper suggesting that GThomas was used as an oracle, hence its lack of order and organisation. See
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 25, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Stevan Davies once wrote a paper suggesting that GThomas was used as
        an oracle, hence its lack of order and organisation.

        See http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/THOMAS/ORACLES.HTM

        Best Wishes

        Andrew

        Andrew Smith
        Bardic Press
        http://www.bardic-press.com
      • Tom Saunders
        Stevan Davies once wrote a paper suggesting that GThomas was used as an oracle, hence its lack of order and organisation. I would suggest that the oracle
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 25, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          "Stevan Davies once wrote a paper suggesting that GThomas was used as
          an oracle, hence its lack of order and organisation."

          I would suggest that the oracle idea is a bust. I think saying 3, of Thomas and the corresponding saying in the GMary rule out the use of oracles, "34) Beware that no one lead you astray saying Lo here or lo there! For the Son of Man is within you."

          The use of oracles probably suggests an outside or external being or force that can dictate or predict future events. What we see in Thomas is not that kind of internal and external relationship. We see a methodology or suggestion of self power in the universe, and a suggestion that you do not go looking for the kingdom but you wait to see it.

          I think the Thomas list is more a list of 'precepts' rather than an oracle.

          Tom Saunders
          Platter Flats, OK



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Michael Grondin
          ... I ve been negligent in not responding to this sooner, but a certain tangent to the recent discussion of #98 has furnished me with an example of the kind of
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 20, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Back on Sep. 23, Rick Hubbard wrote:
            > The question becomes whether Mike has tumbled across evidence
            > that GTh is one gigantic “hermeneiai!”

            I've been negligent in not responding to this sooner, but a certain tangent
            to the recent discussion of #98 has furnished me with an example of the kind
            of thing that I see in GThom, and that is illustrative of the difference
            between my working hypothesis and the hypothesis of GTh as oracle-text.

            The first thing that I want to say is that in looking over GThom, I do
            indeed find many sayings that seem to be oracular in nature, which is to say
            that they're ambiguous enough to serve in a process of divination. But I
            also find many sayings that do not appear to have this quality. (What I have
            in mind is a sort of "horoscope quality", i.e., general and ambiguous enough
            that they could be interpreted to fit many different real-life situations.)

            More to the point, however, is that my working hypothesis is not that the
            sayings were intended to be numbered differently (though that may be true),
            nor that some of them were intended to be picked out as oracles as the text
            now stands, but that the text was intended to be rearranged - indeed, that
            some stuff may have been intended to be discarded entirely. When this has
            been done, it may be that the resultant text - or a contiguous subset of
            it - is oracular in nature, but that is not my focus, nor do I have any
            strong intuitions about it one way or another at this point. What I think is
            that the reader was intended to make the text "perfect" in some sense. What
            the shape of that "perfection" is is not yet clear to me.

            "The text was intended to be rearranged." That is the radical possibility
            which I propose, and which simply hasn't occurred to anyone, because we have
            no known examples of it. And yet it stares us in the face in sayings 6 and
            14. Logion 6 consists of a series of questions which are answered in logion
            14. There's no plausible way around that fact. That 14 was intended to
            answer 6 is clearly indicated not only by its contents, by also by its
            opening words, which are that "JS said TO THEM" - with no "them" in sight.
            The "them" in question (the disciples) aren't there, because they're off in
            saying 6 asking the questions that 14 answers. Was the separation of 6 and
            14 originally a scribal error? IMO, it was not, for if it was, it would have
            had to have been uncorrected in at least two texts that followed the
            original error, since the POxy fragments have the same "mistake" as the
            Coptic.

            This much I've said before, but now our recent discussion of #98 has led to
            a new insight on this matter. One of the discussants mentioned #35 ("It
            isn't possible for anyone to go into the house of the strong and take it/him
            by force, unless he bind his hands. Then he will move out of his house.") I
            would now like to suggest that 6A (the questions) has been "bound" in
            precisely this way, and that as a result, it has been removed from its
            "house" (i.e., 14). (Parenthetically, this answers a question I've puzzled
            over for some time, viz., was 6A intended to be moved over to 14, or 14 over
            to 6A? I now think the former must be the case.)

            The "bindings" that I have in mind for 6A are the identical statements (in
            Coptic, if not in translation) "Nothing hidden will fail to appear", which
            occurs at the end of #5 and near the end of #6. Logion 5 must, I think, be
            taken as a lead-in to what follows in logion 6. Note particularly the use of
            the _singular_ 'you' in logion 5. There is no disciple in view to whom these
            words are addressed. Rather, they're addressed, I think, to the reader:

            "Know what's in front of YOUR face, and that which is hidden from YOU will
            be revealed to YOU."

            This is not obvious to us when we read it in English, but in Coptic there's
            a difference between the singular 'you' and the plural 'you'. That
            difference would have been obvious to the native reader. When Jesus is made
            to utter pronouncements containing the word 'you/your' with no disciples in
            sight, it's invariably the plural 'you'. But here in logion 5, it's singular
            in all three occurrences. Why? What is it that's in front of the reader's
            face at that point? Apparently, that the response given to the questions in
            6A (i.e., "Do not lie.") is not the answer to those questions. What's
            "hidden" at that point is the real answers; they're "hidden" because they're
            off in #14. Evidently, #14 is the "house" of 6A, and the "strong" (6A) has
            been removed from its "house" by having its "hands" (i.e., both ends of it)
            "bound" by the identical phrase "Nothing hidden will fail to appear". But
            now "Jesus" appears in #5 to "free the captive" - or rather, to tell the
            reader that he/she should "free the captive". The reader is thus not left
            clueless as to how to rearrange the text - "Jesus" helps him. (Which
            would have been the pious way of understanding the fact that some
            of J's purported sayings refer to others. This is not to deny the existence
            of the normal level of meaning, but to add another.)

            If this suggested combination of Christian ideology with authorial genius
            was at first glance opaque to the ancient mind, how much more so to the
            modern, where what might be subtle syntactical clues are typically assigned
            to scribal sloppiness? If my intuitions are correct, however, GThom lives up
            to its promise to give the world "that which has never occurred to the mind
            of man" - in spades.

            Mike Grondin
            The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
            http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.