Re: [GTh] The Monad as Father
- Frank McCoy writes:
> ... to the best of my knowledge, the Monad was *not* understood to be aOK. No problem.
> ... I findAs I recall, I asked you what you thought of the symbolism that I suggested.
> implausible the hypothesis that one of the rules for solving the
> word puzzle in the Coptic text of GTh is that one line (a Monad, so to
> speak) can mate with two lines (a Dyad so to speak) to father three lines
> (a son so to speak).
You think the suggested symbolism is incorrect. OK, fine, but that doesn't
alter the fact that 280 is intended to be put together with 69-70. That's
indicated by numerical and syntactical pointers, and is independent of
whatever symbolism can be found for it. In other words, it doesn't matter
what the joining of these segments might have MEANT (though it'd be
interesting to know) - the brute fact is that the authors intended them to
be put together.
> Also, since this hypothesis is inconsistent with the apparent BarbelioticAgain, the "hypothesis" as you call it, was simply an idea that occurred to
> belief that the Monad is Father in the sense of fathering what is created
> rather than in the sense of fathering numbers through mating with the
> it apparently is inconsistent with the current formulation of the theory
> that the Coptic text of GTh is a word puzzle. This is because, as
> formulated, one of the key underlying premises of this theory is that
> Barbeliotic thought is to be used in solving the puzzle.
me. If it's inconsistent with Barbeliote belief, then it's inconsistent with
the theory, as you say, and it'll have to go. The theory is correct.
Symbolic interpretations of moves involved in solving the puzzle are gravy.
> One final note. For those who are interested in the question of whetherMy edition of Philo doesn't have "Questions and Answers on Exodus". Perhaps
> there might be any numerical significance to line 280/block 6, I strongly
> suggest reading Exodus, Book II, Sect. 87--where Philo discusses the
> numerical significance of both 28 and 280 and relates 28 to 6 at one
you can pass on what Philo has to say there.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: [GTh] The Monad as Father
> My edition of Philo doesn't have "Questions and Answers on Exodus".
> you can pass on what Philo has to say there.
Here is the relevent passage:
But at the present time the natural virtue of the number 28 must be set
down. Now it is the first perfect number equal to its parts, and it has the
matter of its substance from three, and especially for this reason is
concordant with the first six, for six is the first equal to its parts.
Accordingly, this number has one good. And it has still another essence
(ousian) through the number seven, since it is composed of units which go
singly from one to seven, as follows: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 making 28. And the
third is that it multiplies the number seven, being four times seven or
seven times four. Now the number four is also related in species to the
number seven, and there is nothing more perfect. By these numbers the
theologian (ho theologos) says the tabernacle was erected, making the length
of the ten curtains twenty-eight cubits (each) and the total two hundred and
eighty, while the (total breadth) was forty. And the power which the number
forty brings to living beings has already been spoken of. As for the number
two hundred and eighty, it is forty multiplied by seven, and the number
seven is dedicated to God.
Here, Philo states that he earlier spoke about the number 40 and the power
it brings to life, and the reference perhaps is to Mos ii (84)--where Philo
speaks about "forty, the most prolific of life, which gives the time in
which, as we are told, the man is fully formed in the laboratory of nature."
Apparently, this statement is based upon the premise that it is forty weeks
from the conception of a human being to the birth of this human being..
So, it is clear from above, Philo related 280 to the number 7 in its aspect
as something dedicated to God and to the number 40 as the number of weeks
for gestation and birth.
Might this Philonic idea relate to line 280?
It reads, "Come into being as you pass away."
In this case,.that this passage is to be found on line 280 (which is 40x7)
is to indicate to the reader that (since 40 relates to gestation and birth)
one's coming into being is a type of gestation and birth in which (since
seven is dedicated to God) that being born is dedicated to God. As a
result, the reader is given the insight to recognize that this passage
regards one's rebirth from an old self emeshed in the world to a new self
dedicated to God and what is holy.
The bottom line: I think that Michael Grondin has made a very important
discovery regarding the Coptic text of GTh, i.e., that the lines are
deliberately arranged into 24 blocks and that the line numbers and block
numbers are significant. What I have difficulty accepting is his further
idea that these blocks and lines constitute a word-puzzle. Rather, I
suspect, they are designed to help the insightful reader to properly
intepret what (s)he is reading. So, for example, I suggest (for reasons
given above) that the saying, "Come into being as you pass away.", has been
deliberately placed on line 280 so as to help enable the insightlul reader
to understand that it can be roughly paraphrased, "Be reborn as a new self
dedicated to God as you die to your old self emeshed in the world."
1809 N. English Apt. 15
Maplewood, MN USA 55109
- Frank McCoy writes:
> The bottom line: I think that Michael Grondin has made a very importantThanks very much, Frank. Doubly so, because this identifies for me a
> discovery regarding the Coptic text of GTh, i.e., that the lines are
> deliberately arranged into 24 blocks and that the line numbers and block
> numbers are significant. What I have difficulty accepting is his further
> idea that these blocks and lines constitute a word-puzzle.
stopping-point beyond which I have to convince people. In any case, once one
gets to this point, a very important implication follows - namely, that the
scribe who penned this manuscript was NOT free to write however many letters
he wanted on each line. In order for line 280 to contain the desired
contents, it would have been necessary for the scribe to strictly adhere to
the prototype from which he was copying. But then what about line 9 - which
is half blank? Presuming that line 9 of the prototype was full, and that the
half-blank line was due to an imperfection in the papyrus (which is what the
experts say - in spite of the fact that papryral imperfections are very
small - about the size of a letter or two), then the scribe would have had
to make up for that imperfection by putting additional letters on lines
below, so that he could return to copying the prototype faithfully as soon
as he could. But there's no evident attempt to cram letters onto lines
following line 9. The 8 lines following line 9, for example, contain
23+25+24+24+23+25+24+22 = 190 letters. But the 8 lines prior to line 9
contain 26+26+23+26+24+24+24+23 = 196 letters! In other words, the average
size of the 8 lines which FOLLOW the supposed papyral imperfection (where
the scribe should apparently be making up for lost ground on line 9) is even
LESS THAN the 8 lines that PRECEDE the supposed imperfection!
I have an explanation for line 9, but one has to cross over the Jordan to
the puzzle theory to accept it. Line 9 is supposed to be half-blank. It was
half-blank in the prototype that the scribe was copying from. It had to be
half-blank because something is supposed to be moved there from somewhere
else. Its size (12 letters) is symbolically significant - like the
same-sized last line of ApocJn - 'IS PE-XRS 2AMHN' ('Jesus the-Christ
Amen'). But let's assume that you're not yet ready to cross over the Jordan
into the Puzzle Theory, because - let's face it - the theory is patently
unbelievable. OK, then, what you have to explain is (1) a papyral
imperfection of impossible size, and (2) the evident lack of any attempt by
the scribe to make up for that lost ground.
> But at the present time the natural virtue of the number 28 must be setCould you recheck this, Frank? It seems like the second line should read
> down. Now it is the first perfect number equal to its parts, and it has
> matter of its substance from three, and especially for this reason is
> concordant with the first six, for six is the first equal to its parts.
that 28 is the SECOND perfect number equal to its parts, right? Or did Philo
or the printer make a mistake there?