Re: [GTh] The Alpha-Omega Principle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
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
> 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
> 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.
> true that it's a trilogy, however, then the folks who made it must have
> 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?
> 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
> 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
> 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
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,
> I don't know how it's to be done, but I'm convinced that it's part of the
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.
1809 N. English Apt 15
Maplewood, MN USA 55109
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 beI'll address this last first. You reckon without the fact that line 668 of
> demonstrated that this line not only ought to be moved, but that it ought
> be moved out of this part of Codex II altogether, thereby enabling it to
> have exactly 3,000 lines.
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