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

Re: [GTh] The Alpha-Omega Principle

Expand Messages
  • fmmccoy
    ... From: Michael Grondin To: Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 12:30 AM Subject: [GTh] The Alpha-Omega
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 27 4:20 PM
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 12:30 AM
      Subject: [GTh] The Alpha-Omega Principle


      >
      > Frank McCoy writes:
      > > ... given the current lack of rigorous controls on how one can arrive
      > > at a solution, what would be remarkable about finding a solution to the
      > > hypothesised word puzzle? Would it even be remarkable to find ten
      > > different
      > > solutions? I rather doubt it. Is there any way that it can be proven
      > > that
      > > there is one, and only one, solution to this hypothesised word puzzle?


      > Yes. The final structure or structures will have to fit perfectly with
      each
      > other. Now there may be more than one way to get to that "solution", but I
      > believe that it will turn out that there can be only one "solution". As to
      > the "current lack of rigorous controls", there's no way to get around
      that,
      > since we don't yet know what the organizing principles were. Nevertheless,
      I
      > can announce one now with some degree of confidence: the alpha-omega
      > principle.
      >
      > According to this principle (which is based on THEIR view that Christ was
      > "the alpha" and "the omega" - i.e, "the beginning" and "the end"), what we
      > would expect to find is that the beginnings or ends of textual groups like
      > lines and blocks would be prominently involved in at least the early
      > "moves".

      Who are these mysterious people? Who is the Christ they believe in? Is he
      Jesus? Is he the Davidic Christ? Where in one of their texts can one find
      the declaration that this Christ is the Alpha and Omega?

      In any event, if my understanding is correct, the A-W principle is that the
      beginnings or ends of textual groups would be prominently involved in at
      least the early 'moves'.

      Textual groups are said to include lines and blocks. It is not clear to me
      whether a single line or a single block also is a textual group. I will
      base the rest of my comments in this post on the assumption that a single
      line or a single block is a textual group. So, for example, I assume that
      the A-W principle not only permits the movement of one or more of the
      beginning blocks, but the movement of one or more of the beginning lines of
      a block.

      (Note: The rest of this post will be difficult for the reader to understand
      without knowing the line, block and sayings schema postulated by Mike. So,
      here is a copy of this schema from an earlier post by Mike that the reader
      can refer to if need be--with the block numbers (from 1-24) listed on the
      far left::
      > 1. lines 1-66 (sayings 1-9)
      > 2. lines 67-148 (sayings 10-19)
      > 3. lines 149-177 (sayings 20-21)
      > 4. lines 178-193 (saying 22)
      > 5. lines 194-279 (sayings 23-41)
      > 6. line 280 (saying 42)
      > 7. lines 281-318 (sayings 43-47)
      > 8. lines 319-354 (sayings 48-54)
      > 9. lines 355-435 (sayings 55-64)
      > 10. lines 436-455 (sayings 65-67)
      > 11. lines 456-468 (sayings 68-70)
      > 12. lines 469-470 (saying 71)
      >
      > 13. lines 471-548 (sayings 72-88)
      > 14. lines 549-570 (sayings 89-94)
      > 15. lines 571-577 (sayings 95-96)
      > 16. lines 578-591 (sayings 97-98)
      > 17. lines 592-597 (saying 99)
      > 18. lines 598-602 (saying 100)
      > 19. lines 603-608 (saying 101)
      > 20. lines 609-634 (sayings 102-107)
      > 21. lines 635-637 (saying 108)
      > 22. lines 638-645 (saying 109)
      > 23. lines 646-647 (saying 110)
      > 24. lines 648-668 (sayings 111-114))


      >Line 280 is interesting because - being on a line by itself - it
      > could be thought of as being its own beginning and end, so to speak.
      > Furthermore, it TALKS ABOUT both a beginning and an end.

      Line 280 is also a block (i.e., 6) and a saying (i.e., 42). The A-W
      principle can apply to it because it is divisible into a number of
      words--the first of which is its beginning and the last of which is its end.

      However, what is argued here is that the A-W principle does not apply to
      this line-saying-block because its references to a beginning (come into
      being) and an end (as you pass away) ought to be interpreted to mean that it
      is its own beginning and end.

      IMO, these two references relate to one's rebirth. As one is born into a
      second kind of existence, one dies to the first type of existence. If so,
      then these two references are not a beginning-end scenario, but a new
      beginning-end scenario.

      Still, the question remains as to whether there is another level of meaning
      to this line-block-saying in which the first reference is not to a new
      beginning, but to a beginning. This is possible, but, as will be pointed
      out later in this post, this appears to be unlikely.

      < But what about its
      > "emanation" or "female partner"? The A-W principle would seem to demand
      that
      > the entire top of block 2 (lines 67-70, not just lines 69-70) be removed
      > from the main body of the text to join with line 280. Since the equation
      4
      x
      > 70 = 280 seems to recommend that move as well, I'm inclined to regard that
      > as a real option - perhaps the preferred one. It needs more analysis of
      the
      > early stages of AoJ's cosmogony to decide exactly what to do here.

      However, if line 280 has an emanation or female partner, then, it appears,
      she is to be found in lines 469-470 rather than in lines 67(69)-70

      If one line is postulated to be a male and two lines are postulated to be a
      female or an emanation, then the logical partner for this "male" of 1 line
      which is also 1 saying and 1 block would be a "female" of two lines which
      also is 1 saying and 1 block.

      Indeed, this is the case for lines 469-470: which consitute 1 saying (i.e.,
      71) and 1 block (i.e., block 12)!

      Further, this makes sense, since (in terms of blocks), this mates block 6
      with block 12--which mating of 6 and 12, when
      divided by 6, becomes the mating of a 1= a male with a 2 = a female!

      Note that lines 469-470 speak about both an end (the destruction of a
      house) and a new beginning (its rebuilding) Further, the new beginning is
      negated in the sense that it is said that it will not happen. Finally,
      they occur in the order of end-new beginning.

      Compare line 280--which also speaks about both an end (as you pass away) and
      a new beginning (come into being). However, it has two reversals of
      469-470. First, the new beginning is not negated. Second, they occur in
      the order of new beginning-end.

      That both 280 and 469-470 speak about an end and a new beginning suggests
      that they are to be linked. That they have two reversals of each other
      suggests that their linkage is a linkage of opposites--which is in accord
      with the hypothesis that they should be understood to be a male-female pair.

      In contrast, mating line 280 with lines 67 (or 69)-70 does not flow from an
      analysis of the text itself. Rather, it depends upon the usage of an
      alleged cosmological schma that is being imported into GThomas from a
      different document document altogether, i.e., AoJ. Further, that 7x4 = 280
      is an interesting fact, but I fail to see how it supports the idea that line
      280 should be linked to lines 67(69)-70. Of the three numbers of 67, 69,
      and 70, only one is a multipke if 7 (i.e., 70, which is 7x10 ) and none of
      them is a multiple of 4.

      So, between the two hypotheses of (1) line 280 is linked to lines 67(or
      69)-70, and (2) line 280 is to be linked to lines 469-470, the second
      appears to be the preferable one.

      Since, (1) the first hypothesis posits a beginning-end scenario for 280,
      while (2) the second hypothesis posits a new beginning-end scenario for 280,
      that the second hypothesis appears to be preferable to the first hypothesis
      indicates that the scenario in 280 should not be deemed to be a
      beginning-end scenario but, rather, a new beginning-end scenario.

      Frank McCoy
      1809 N. English Apt. 15
      Maplewood, MN USA 55109
    • Michael Grondin
      ... They were evidently Johannine Jewish-Christians who became known as the Barbeloites. That is, they were ethnic Jews converted to Christianity who had a
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 28 9:28 AM
        Frank McCoy writes:
        > Who are these mysterious people?

        They were evidently Johannine Jewish-Christians who became known as the
        Barbeloites. That is, they were ethnic Jews converted to Christianity who
        had a knowledge of Jewish mysticism and held John in high esteem. This much
        can be gathered from the importance they placed on the Apocryphon of John
        (their signature work).

        > Who is the Christ they believe in? Is he Jesus?

        Well, yes and no. The antiphon to AJ says "Jesus Christ, Amen." But this was
        the Johannine Christ - not just the Son of God, as in the synoptics, but the
        Logos through whom the world was created.

        > Is he the Davidic Christ?

        No. He was regarded as "the savior", but not specifically of the Jewish
        race. Rather, the Barbeloites thought of themselves as a new race. This is
        evident in GTh ("I will choose you") and GPh ("When we were Hebrews ...") as
        well.

        > Where in one of their texts can one find
        > the declaration that this Christ is the Alpha and Omega?

        Explicitly, maybe nowhere. Implicitly, all over the place. According to GTh,
        the "shepherd" loves the errant sheep #100 (representing a beginning) more
        than he loves the 99 (representing an end).

        > In any event, if my understanding is correct, the A-W principle is that
        > the
        > beginnings or ends of textual groups would be prominently involved in at
        > least the early 'moves'.

        Yep. I hope this means - although you don't say so - that you find the
        theory plausible. That's a first step of enormous importance, because the
        theory is prima facie implausible. I believe that precedent is very
        important to you - as it is to most scholars - and there's no known
        precedent for a text intended to be rearranged by the reader. But the rule
        of precedent can't be all-controlling or we'd never have any new knowledge.

        > Textual groups are said to include lines and blocks. It is not clear to
        > me
        > whether a single line or a single block also is a textual group. I will
        > base the rest of my comments in this post on the assumption that a single
        > line or a single block is a textual group. So, for example, I assume that
        > the A-W principle not only permits the movement of one or more of the
        > beginning blocks, but the movement of one or more of the beginning lines
        > of
        > a block.

        Yes, and the beginning and ends of lines as well - e.g., the first or last
        word or the first or last letter on a line. The Monad (i.e., the Hebrew
        letter aleph) and its twin image (the Greek letter nu), for example, point
        to the word P-LOGOS ("the Word") on line 510. Why do I say so? Because the
        numeric value of the Monad and its image is 1 + 50 = 51. Furthermore, the
        phrase P-LOGOS is *detachible* from its surroundings, since the remainder of
        the sentence makes perfect sense without it ("Blessed are they who have
        listened to the Father.") This is a principle of operation I've been using
        already, but let's now identify it as "the principle of detachability".
        Nothing can be removed from the body of the text unless the remaining text
        makes sense without it.

        > However, what is argued here is that the A-W principle does not apply to
        > this line-saying-block because its references to a beginning (come into
        > being) and an end (as you pass away) ought to be interpreted to mean that
        > it
        > is its own beginning and end.

        Exactly. But rather than to show that the A-W principle doesn't apply to
        line 280, this shows that it DOES.

        > IMO, these two references relate to one's rebirth. As one is born into a
        > second kind of existence, one dies to the first type of existence. If so,
        > then these two references are not a beginning-end scenario, but a new
        > beginning-end scenario.

        That's like saying "This isn't a wagon; it's a red wagon."

        > Still, the question remains as to whether there is another level of
        > meaning
        > to this line-block-saying in which the first reference is not to a new
        > beginning, but to a beginning. This is possible, but, as will be pointed
        > out later in this post, this appears to be unlikely.

        "Come into being" is a new beginning, yes. I think it represents the
        pneumatic being "born again", as in "My mother brought me forth, but my true
        mother gave me Life" - meaning spiritual life. "Passing away" represents not
        only the deterioration of the body, but also the progressive shedding of the
        passions for things of the world (sex, money, power, etc) as the future
        pneumatic empties himself of those and fills himself with Holy Spirit. The
        is the "motion" of "motion and rest". When he has "become filled", then he's
        a "living spirit" - a "perfect one" - finally "at rest" on the seventh day.
        (Or so the story goes.)

        > ... if line 280 has an emanation or female partner, then, it appears,
        > she is to be found in lines 469-470 rather than in lines 67(69)-70

        STM there's many more commonalities between 69-70 and 280 than between
        469-470 and 280.

        > If one line is postulated to be a male and two lines are postulated to be
        > a
        > female or an emanation, then the logical partner for this "male" of 1 line
        > which is also 1 saying and 1 block would be a "female" of two lines which
        > also is 1 saying and 1 block.

        This is one consideration, certainly. I think there have to be a combination
        of pointers. Let's call this "the principle of multiple witnesses", probably
        related to the Jewish rule of the necessity of two witnesses in legal
        proceedings. Actually, I think there may be even more than two "witnesses"
        required for any suggested textual move - perhaps as many as five. But since
        we don't know for sure yet, let's just say that in choosing between
        alternative moves, the one with the most "witnesses" is to be preferred.

        > Indeed, this is the case for lines 469-470: which consitute 1 saying
        > (i.e.,
        > 71) and 1 block (i.e., block 12)!

        Are you aware that there's another 2-line block (lines 646-47)?

        > Further, this makes sense, since (in terms of blocks), this mates block 6
        > with block 12--which mating of 6 and 12, when
        > divided by 6, becomes the mating of a 1= a male with a 2 = a female!

        The relation between block-numbers is suggestive, yes. What I've pointed out
        previously, however, is that the 400 lines from 69 tthru 468 are bounded or
        "framed" at the top by the two-liner "I've cast fire on the world and look -
        I watch over it", and at the bottom by the two-liner you mention ("I will
        destroy this house and no one will be able to build it up again").

        > Note that lines 469-470 speak about both an end (the destruction of a
        > house) and a new beginning (its rebuilding) Further, the new beginning
        > is
        > negated in the sense that it is said that it will not happen. Finally,
        > they occur in the order of end-new beginning.
        >
        > Compare line 280--which also speaks about both an end (as you pass away)
        > and
        > a new beginning (come into being). However, it has two reversals of
        > 469-470. First, the new beginning is not negated. Second, they occur in
        > the order of new beginning-end.

        We need to balance such syntactical considerations with what the text
        generally says. It is generally non-apocalyptic - so any notion of
        apocalypse or destruction is prima facie a bad thing - unless there's
        considerations pointing in the opposite direction. Would they have thought
        that the destruction of the world (as represented by lines 469-70) was a bad
        thing? I say "yes". The text speaks of the world as a corpse. A corpse is
        neither good nor bad in itself - it's just dead. What's the point of
        destroying something that's already dead? Rather, as GTh says, one eats the
        corpse and thus makes it alive. I think, then, that GTh is contrasting a
        physical apocalypsis with a spiritual transformation. It's bad to believe
        that the world is going to be destroyed by physical fire. It's good to
        believe that the world is going to be transformed into a living thing by the
        "fire" of the word of Jesus. If this analysis is correct, then lines 469-70
        represent the opposite of line 280. That counts against them being regarded
        as a marital pair, for although one might say that "opposites attract", a
        marriage made in heaven would, I presume, be a marriage between two good
        things, not between a good thing and a bad thing - unless, that is, the bad
        thing could be somehow transformed into something good.

        > That both 280 and 469-470 speak about an end and a new beginning suggests
        > that they are to be linked. That they have two reversals of each other
        > suggests that their linkage is a linkage of opposites--which is in accord
        > with the hypothesis that they should be understood to be a male-female
        > pair.

        No. Male and female weren't regarded as opposites, but as complements.

        > In contrast, mating line 280 with lines 67 (or 69)-70 does not flow from
        > an
        > analysis of the text itself.

        On the contrary, one of the several indicators that their marriage is "made
        in heaven" is something you failed to mention - that they both end with the
        word PARAGE. There is no such syntactical connection between lines 469-70
        and 280.

        > ... that 7[0]x4 = 280
        > is an interesting fact, but I fail to see how it supports the idea that
        > line
        > 280 should be linked to lines 67(69)-70. Of the three numbers of 67, 69,
        > and 70, only one is a multipke if 7 (i.e., 70, which is 7x10 ) and none of
        > them is a multiple of 4.

        If GTh is in the nature of a well-designed puzzle, then there are no
        "interesting coincidences". Every "coincidence" potentially means something,
        and where there are several _indepependent_ "witnesses" (i.e., witnesses of
        different types) pointing in the same direction, then that's what's to be
        done. That there are four lines ending at line 70 that contain two complete
        thoughts, and that the IS-numbers involved are 9 (representing an end) and
        10 (representing a new beginning) indicates a firm connection with line 280
        based on numerology. The word PARAGE is an independent, non-numerical
        "witness" that points in the same direction. Thus, syntax, semantics, and
        numerology all point to the 67/69-70 as being the "partner" of line 280.

        Finally, it should be pointed out that we're operating in the dark here. We
        don't yet know what all the basic operating principles of the puzzle were.
        Since we're feeling our way about, we have to make choices between what
        seems more promising and what seems less promising. We can't hold on too
        tightly to something we think we've learned, if something else looks more
        solid. Until the basic operating principles of the puzzle become clearer,
        things are in a fluid state, and it won't do to be overly rigid.

        Mike Grondin
        Mt. Clemens, MI
      • fmmccoy
        ... From: Michael Grondin To: Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] The Alpha-Omega
        Message 3 of 6 , Jan 31 3:00 AM
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
          To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 12:28 PM
          Subject: Re: [GTh] The Alpha-Omega Principle

          (Frank)
          > > Is he the Davidic Christ?

          (Michael)
          > No. He was regarded as "the savior", but not specifically of the Jewish
          > race. Rather, the Barbeloites thought of themselves as a new race. This is
          > evident in GTh ("I will choose you") and GPh ("When we were Hebrews ...")
          as
          > well.

          GThomas does not appear to be a Barbeloite document. Much of what is
          characteristic of Barbeloite thought is absent from it. For example,
          nowhere in GThomas does one find any mention of a Christ.

          (Frank)
          > > Where in one of their texts can one find
          > > the declaration that this Christ is the Alpha and Omega?

          (Michael)
          > Explicitly, maybe nowhere. Implicitly, all over the place. According to
          GTh,
          > the "shepherd" loves the errant sheep #100 (representing a beginning) more
          > than he loves the 99 (representing an end).

          Again, GThomas is taken to be a Barbeloite text despite it lacking much of
          what is characteristic of Barbeloitic thought. In any event, the
          "shepherd" of 108 is not the Christ, nor is *he* declared to be the
          beginning and the end. No evidence has been produced that it was a
          Barbeloite doctrine that the Christ is the Alpha and the Omega. So, it
          appears, it is *not* a Barbeloite doctrine or, for that matter, a Thomas
          doctine, that the Chirst is the Alpha and the Omega.

          (Frank)
          > > In any event, if my understanding is correct, the A-W principle is that
          > > the
          > > beginnings or ends of textual groups would be prominently involved in at
          > > least the early 'moves'.

          (Michael)
          > Yep. I hope this means - although you don't say so - that you find the
          > theory plausible. That's a first step of enormous importance, because the
          > theory is prima facie implausible. I believe that precedent is very
          > important to you - as it is to most scholars - and there's no known
          > precedent for a text intended to be rearranged by the reader. But the rule
          > of precedent can't be all-controlling or we'd never have any new
          knowledge.

          I'm trying to understand the theory so that I can evaluate it.

          I accept the reality of the division of the one Coptic text of GThomas we
          possess into 24 blocks--with each block, in turn, divisible into sayings and
          lines. This is an important discovery in and of itself and I think that a
          publication of a book on it, even, if necessary, through the "vanity" press,
          should be made.

          Beyond that, from what I've seen so far, the theory appears to be, at least
          at this stage of the game, implausible.

          (Frank)
          > > Textual groups are said to include lines and blocks. It is not clear to
          > > me
          > > whether a single line or a single block also is a textual group. I will
          > > base the rest of my comments in this post on the assumption that a
          single
          > > line or a single block is a textual group. So, for example, I assume
          that
          > > the A-W principle not only permits the movement of one or more of the
          > > beginning blocks, but the movement of one or more of the beginning
          lines
          > > of
          > > a block.

          (Michael)
          > Yes, and the beginning and ends of lines as well - e.g., the first or last
          > word or the first or last letter on a line. The Monad (i.e., the Hebrew
          > letter aleph) and its twin image (the Greek letter nu), for example, point
          > to the word P-LOGOS ("the Word") on line 510. Why do I say so? Because the
          > numeric value of the Monad and its image is 1 + 50 = 51.

          Is there a Roman Empire text where the Hebrew letter aleph is identified as
          being the Monad? None is given, so this appears to be an unsupported
          assertion and, so, to be pure speculation.

          Again, is there a Roman Empire text in which nu is declared to be the twin
          image of aleph? None is given, so this appears to be an unsupported
          assertion and, so, to be pure speculation.

          An original and its twin image, ISTM, will have the same value. An image
          of a 1 ISTM, is also a 1. So, it is counter-intuitive to assert that we
          have, here, a situation where an original and its twin image have
          radically different values (i.e., 1 and 50). A rationale justifying this is
          needed, but is not given.

          Why in the world should one be doing numerical calculations with Hebrew and
          Greek letters to solve the postulated puzzle when the text consists of
          Coptic letters? This is counter-intuitive. So, a rationale justifying
          this is needed, but is not given.

          I hope that this helps to illustrate why, from what I've read so far, I find
          the full-blown theory to be, at least at this stage of the game,
          implausible.

          Frank McCoy
          1809 N. English Apt. 15
          Maplewood, MN USA 55109
        • Michael Grondin
          ... Christ is coming, Frank . I ve set my theory down in the form of four claims, all of which are unbelievable, yet the evidence shows to be both probable
          Message 4 of 6 , Jan 31 7:07 AM
            Frank McCoy writes:

            > GThomas does not appear to be a Barbeloite document. Much of what is
            > characteristic of Barbeloite thought is absent from it. For example,
            > nowhere in GThomas does one find any mention of a Christ.

            Christ is coming, Frank <g>. I've set my theory down in the form of four
            claims, all of which are unbelievable, yet the evidence shows to be both
            probable and provable. Here they are:

            1. The manuscript of GTh is a faithful copy of its prototype.
            2. Every hair on its head has been counted. - i.e., it has to be exactly as
            it is.
            3. The first three texts of Codex II were designed as a trilogy.
            4. The cosmogony of the Apocryphon of John is a coded description of how to
            solve the Thomas puzzle.

            One of the pieces of evidence for claim 3 is the line counts of the three
            texts: 1100 + 668 + 1232 = 3000. This utterly defies randomness. If it's
            true that it's a trilogy, however, then the folks who made it must have been
            Barbeloites, because the major text is their signature work, the AoJ. Before
            writing AoJ, however, they certainly had some version of GTh, and probably
            (though not certainly) some version of GPh as well. What does this have to
            do with "Christ"? GPh says "When Christ came, the cities were made beautiful
            and the dead were carried out." This is a most unusual thing to say. I
            believe that the reference to "cities" being made beautiful has to do with
            the rearranging of the pieces of the Thomas puzzle, and that "when Christ
            came" refers to a key step in the reconstruction - namely the importation of
            the word 'Christ' into the puzzle text. As it turns out, there's a likely
            candidate for such a move - the last line of the AoJ ("Jesus Christ, Amen").
            I don't know how it's to be done, but I'm convinced that it's part of the
            puzzle.

            > I accept the reality of the division of the one Coptic text of GThomas we
            > possess into 24 blocks--with each block, in turn, divisible into sayings
            > and
            > lines. This is an important discovery in and of itself and I think that a
            > publication of a book on it, even, if necessary, through the "vanity"
            > press,
            > should be made.

            Thanks for the faint praise. Note that if the blocks are meaningful, this is
            already a radical idea, since every text contains blocks, and they never
            mean anything.

            > Beyond that, from what I've seen so far, the theory appears to be, at
            > least
            > at this stage of the game, implausible.

            Of course it's implausible. You needn't keep saying that. But it's also
            implausible that three consecutive texts in a book should be 1100 + 668 +
            1232 = 3000 lines.

            > Is there a Roman Empire text where the Hebrew letter aleph is identified
            > as
            > being the Monad? None is given, so this appears to be an unsupported
            > assertion and, so, to be pure speculation.
            >
            > Again, is there a Roman Empire text in which nu is declared to be the twin
            > image of aleph? None is given, so this appears to be an unsupported
            > assertion and, so, to be pure speculation.
            >
            > An original and its twin image, ISTM, will have the same value. An image
            > of a 1 ISTM, is also a 1.

            Have you _looked_ at the Hebrew letter aleph, Frank? Believe what your own
            eyes tell you. Uncial nu is an "image" of aleph. We don't need no stinkin'
            Roman Empire texts to tell us that.

            > Why in the world should one be doing numerical calculations with Hebrew
            > and
            > Greek letters to solve the postulated puzzle when the text consists of
            > Coptic letters? This is counter-intuitive. So, a rationale justifying
            > this is needed, but is not given.

            What you call "Coptic letters" is in fact an alphabet composed mainly of
            GREEK letters, with only a half dozen uniquely Coptic letters thrown in.
            Greek loan-words were used in Coptic texts. The Copts used the Greek number
            system. The connection to Greek is unquestionable. As to Hebrew, the
            evidence suggests that the Barbeloites were converted Jews. As such, the
            Hebrew alphabet and its related number system (also based on letters, but
            somewhat different from the Greek because of differences in letters and
            their order) would have been well-known to them. (And no, I cannot yet
            _prove_ that the Barbeloites were converted Jews. At this point I can only
            refer you to the contents of AoJ, which shows a strong interest in Hebrew
            lore. Also, you might note GPh's "When we were Hebrews..." thingy.)

            Mike Grondin
          • fmmccoy
            ... From: Michael Grondin To: Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] The Alpha-Omega
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 1, 2005
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
              To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 10:07 AM
              Subject: Re: [GTh] The Alpha-Omega Principle


              >
              > Frank McCoy writes:
              >
              > > GThomas does not appear to be a Barbeloite document...For example,
              > > nowhere in GThomas does one find any mention of a Christ.

              > Christ is coming, Frank <g>. I've set my theory down in the form of four
              > claims, all of which are unbelievable, yet the evidence shows to be both
              > probable and provable. Here they are:
              >
              > 1. The manuscript of GTh is a faithful copy of its prototype.
              > 2. Every hair on its head has been counted. - i.e., it has to be exactly
              as
              > it is.
              > 3. The first three texts of Codex II were designed as a trilogy.
              > 4. The cosmogony of the Apocryphon of John is a coded description of how
              to
              > solve the Thomas puzzle.
              >
              > One of the pieces of evidence for claim 3 is the line counts of the three
              > texts: 1100 + 668 + 1232 = 3000. This utterly defies randomness.

              In Codex II, doesn't the part of it containing these three texts have
              another line at the end of AoJ: making 1,101 lines for AoJ and making 3,001
              lines for this part of the codex? 3,001 is hardly a remarkable number
              requiring a special explanation.

              >If it's
              > true that it's a trilogy, however, then the folks who made it must have
              been
              > Barbeloites, because the major text is their signature work, the AoJ.

              But neither of the other two texts appears to be a Barbeloite work--for much
              of what is characteristic of Barbeliotic thought is absent from them. As a
              result, ISTM, it is highly speculative to think that, if we are dealing
              with a trilogy, it is one created by Barbeloites. In this case, why didn't
              they create the trilogy out of three works that all clearly bear the imprint
              of Barbeliotic thought?

              >Before
              > writing AoJ, however, they certainly had some version of GTh, and probably
              > (though not certainly) some version of GPh as well.

              The question is not whether these GPh and GTh were two of the sources used
              by the Barbeloites when writing AoJ. The question, rather, is whether the
              Barbeloites privileged these two texts over the other non-Barbeloite texts
              they possessed. Unless this question can be answered affirmatively through
              evidence, I see no reason for perceiving the trilogy, if it is real, to be
              a Barbeloite creation.

              >What does this have to
              > do with "Christ"? GPh says "When Christ came, the cities were made
              beautiful
              > and the dead were carried out." This is a most unusual thing to say. I
              > believe that the reference to "cities" being made beautiful has to do with
              > the rearranging of the pieces of the Thomas puzzle, and that "when Christ
              > came" refers to a key step in the reconstruction - namely the importation
              of
              > the word 'Christ' into the puzzle text.

              Another Nag Hammadi text, The Teachings of Silvanus (85), refers to "the
              whole city, which is your soul". So, ISTM, this passage from GPh most
              likely regards what happened to the souls of those who receptive to the
              Christ. That is, these "cities" received the words of God he uttered,
              thereby adorning themselves, and rejected the dead thoughts they had
              previously entertained, thereby carrying out their dead.

              At least this manner of interpreting the passage from GPh is based on an
              interpretation of "cities" as meaning "souls" that was circulating in early
              Christian circles.

              This is more than what can said for the other interpretation, in which the
              "cities" are taken to mean blocks of material in GThomas. Nowhere in any
              early Christian text does one find such a meaning for "cities". As a
              result, this other interpretation is without a proper foundation and, so,
              appears to be sheer speculation and to be, as such, implausible..

              >As it turns out, there's a likely
              > candidate for such a move - the last line of the AoJ ("Jesus Christ,
              Amen").
              > I don't know how it's to be done, but I'm convinced that it's part of the
              > puzzle.

              By what criteria is this line a likely candidate for such a move?

              This is the extra line that makes the total 3,001 lines for the three texts.
              Moving it from AoJ into GTh does not alter this situation. Only if this
              line is moved out of this part of Codex II altogether does one get a total
              of exactly 3,000 lines for the three texts.

              IMO, it would make the whole theory more credible if it could be
              demonstrated that this line not only ought to be moved, but that it ought to
              be moved out of this part of Codex II altogether, thereby enabling it to
              have exactly 3,000 lines.

              Frank McCoy
              1809 N. English Apt 15
              Maplewood, MN USA 55109
            • Michael Grondin
              Frank- As I see it, you raise three major issues in this note: 1. The folks who put the trilogy together couldn t have been Barbeloites, because there s no
              Message 6 of 6 , Feb 1, 2005
                Frank-

                As I see it, you raise three major issues in this note:

                1. The folks who put the trilogy together couldn't have been Barbeloites,
                because there's no evidence of Barbeloite thinking in GTh and GPh.

                2. The reference to "cities [being] made beautiful" in GPh is about souls,
                not about the creation of "beautiful" TEXTUAL structures.

                3. The 1101st line of AJ throws off the nice, neat count of 3000 lines,
                hence, among other things:

                > IMO, it would make the whole theory more credible if it could be
                > demonstrated that this line not only ought to be moved, but that it ought
                > to
                > be moved out of this part of Codex II altogether, thereby enabling it to
                > have exactly 3,000 lines.

                I'll address this last first. You reckon without the fact that line 668 of
                GTh has plenty of space on it for the antiphon of AJ to be moved down there.
                (It currently has 6 letters, the antiphon is 12, and 18 letters would easily
                fit on that line.)

                The other two issues aren't of such great importance to me that I would want
                to spend time arguing about them. Perhaps you can tell me what you think
                "Barbeloite thinking" might have been? To me, they were Johannine
                Jewish-Christians with a background in Jewish mysticism. The name 'Barbelo'
                (BARBHLW) was derived, I think, from the component parts of the word
                IS-RA-HL, with 'IS' representing Jesus, and 'RA' and 'HL' representing the
                gods of the Egyptians and Jews, respectively. You might want to work around
                with that a little bit (think of the letter B as representing the number 2,
                and thus "selecting" whatever two letters follow it. The omega may represent
                Jesus.)

                Mike Grondin
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.