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

Some Implications

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    Why should we be concerned with the presence of one design element within the Coptic GTh? Because (1) it may be the tip of an iceberg, (2) it tells us
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 17, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Why should we be concerned with the presence of one design element within
      the Coptic GTh? Because (1) it may be the tip of an iceberg, (2) it tells us
      something about the thinking behind the CGTh which is unexpected, and (3) it
      may have significant impact on our own thinking about the generic GTh. Were
      other versions also so designed? Is there stuff in the Coptic version that
      wasn't in the others? Have some sayings been modified to fit a design
      pattern, and does that explain the differences between the Coptic version
      and the POxy fragments, for example? For all these reasons and others, it
      seems to me that even folks whose main interest is in dating or
      authenticity, for example, should be interested as well in the solution to
      this mystery about CGTh.

      What's clear from the interconnected design of lines 70 and 280 is that the
      Copts were counting syntactical elements - lines, occurrences of 'IS', even
      letters. Why not, then, blocks of text? (A "block" being a number of
      contiguous lines - possibly only one - that begin a thought at the left-hand
      margin and end a thought - usually another one - at the right-hand margin).
      Ordinarily, such blocks - which naturally occur in all texts - are of no
      importance. But the evidence seems to indicate that in CGTh they are.

      CGTh contains 24 blocks. Is it any coincidence that 24 is the number of
      prophets of Israel (as mentioned in the text), as well as the number of
      letters in saying 42 (line 280)? If so, we might expect the coincidences to
      end there. But they don't. Line 280 is block 6 of the text, and 42 = 6x7.
      Not only that, but 6 is the first "perfect number" - and known to be so in
      antiquity.

      A perfect number is a number equal to the sum of its "parts" (i.e., its
      factors - including 1). There aren't many of them - in fact only one between
      1 and 10, one between 10 and 100, one between 100 and 1000, and one between
      1000 and 10,000. The first perfect number (6) is the number of the only
      one-line block in CGTh - line 280. The second perfect number is 280/10 = 28.
      (As to the third perfect number - 496 - we'll get to that below).

      Given that the Copts had a one-line saying that they wanted to put on a line
      divisible by 70, there are yet other reasons for choosing to put it on line
      280, and these have to do with gematria. The difference between 70 and 280
      is 210, which is the gematria value of 'IS'. On the other hand, the sum of
      70 and 280 is 10 times the gematria value (in both Greek and Hebrew) of
      AGLA, the rabbinical word of power. AGLA was an acronym for 'ateh gibur
      loulam Adonai', which is equivalent to Latin 'tu potens in saeculum domine."
      (Of course in Greek, adonai/domine is kyrios - Lord. It was of no small
      moment when Christians started calling Jesus "the Lord".)

      Returning to 210, the gematria value of 'IS', we may now offer a plausible
      explanation for an otherwise mysterious difference between CGTh and the
      Greek fragments - i.e., that in the Greek fragments, L77B ("Split a piece
      of wood, I am there. Lift the stone, and you will find me there") is placed
      at the end of saying 30, but in CGTh it occurs on lines 494-496 at the end
      of saying 77. The first thing to notice is that 496 is the third perfect
      number. But there's something else. By moving this subsaying from L30 to L77
      (if that's what happened), the Copts have moved it _outside_ of the range of
      the segment of 210 lines from 71 thru 280. Why might that have been
      important? Because with 77B outside of the range of those 210 lines, they
      can now be understood to represent the "Jesus" to be found by "lift[ing] the
      stone" - where "the stone" can be interpreted as the four lines 67-70 to be
      "lifted" from the top of block 2. (This wouldn't be so clear if 77B were
      _inside_ that hypothetical "textual Jesus", as it is in the POxy fragments.)
      L11.1 reinforces this interpretation, for it says that both it and something
      above it will "pass away". If the something above it is L10, that confirms
      that lines 67-70 are to "pass away" or be "lifted" in some way so as to
      reveal the "textual Jesus" composed of lines 71-280.

      It will be noticed that this rather strange-sounding explication involves an
      interpretation of some sayings as referring to themselves or other segments
      of text. The suggestion here is that there is an intertextual level of
      meaning _in addition to_ the normal level(s) - not instead of it/them. The
      presence of such an additional level of meaning is strongly suggested by the
      fact that it accords so well with what the numbering indicates. It need not
      have done so, but it evidently does. This in turn suggests that the
      intention wasn't merely to imbed secret numbers in the text.

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