Re: [GTh] Design Theory
- Hi Ron,
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I'll just respond to part of it here.
> ... why didn't the Copts correct it? ... did they even "see" it?Yes, I'm quite sure they noticed it. The reason I'm
rather certain about this is that in addition to what I've pointed out
about the careful relationship they constructed between L42 and L11.1 (and
between lines 70 and 480), there's evidence that they went through the
whole thing with a fine-toothed comb. As you know, the Coptic of the time
employed a number of Greek loan-words. It occurred to me to count those
words, and so I did. There's 501 occurrences of Greek words and names in the
text - which could mean nothing, except they're composed of 2401 letters!
One of those words is the single-letter word 'W' (in "Oh, man, who made me a
divider?" in saying 72). Coincidentally (?), saying 72 occurs at a dividing
line - the first saying of the second group of 12 blocks of the text. I
could say a lot more about that situation (being as how omega is an "end"),
but I'll let you mull over the simple facts first.
> And if they saw it, did they even "dare" change it? This was probablyReluctant, perhaps, and yet they DID make some changes. Among other things,
> considered an ancient and sacred text by the Copts at the time they
> did the Nag Hammadi translation, and one supposes they would be
> reluctant to make changes.
they evidently moved what is now 77B from saying 30, and my surmise is that
its positioning partially on line 496 was no accident, due to the
significance of the number 496 as the 3rd perfect number. (BTW, I don't
recall noticing this until the other day when I was writing that note;
previously, I didn't have a clue why they might have moved 77B. One thing
that's kept me going down this road is that such results keep popping up
unexpectedly. Not enough to prove the theory, but enough to indicate that it
isn't a blind alley.)
That's all I have time for right now. Hopefully, food for thought.