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

Re: [GTh] Re: Block Sizes

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    ... I ll do my best, but I m very much afraid you ll find the result unsatisfactory, Andrew. There are quite a few textual features related to sayings 42 and
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 5, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      [Andrew B]:
      > Alright, I'm probably going to regret this, but go ahead and try to
      > convince me from the relationship between L42 and L11.1 that your design
      > theory is plausible (and clarify what "L" stands for). I don't have time
      > to go digging through archives so you'll have to restate your case.
      > Please be succinct and clear.

      I'll do my best, but I'm very much afraid you'll find the result
      unsatisfactory, Andrew. There are quite a few textual features related to
      sayings 42 and 11.1, and I haven't yet been able to figure the best way to
      organize them for presentation. In addition, there are two items that need
      to be clarified - one about probability and one about "gematria-values".
      Hopefully, I can work those in without too much loss of succinctness. (BTW,
      'L' stands for 'logion'. Judy Redman used that short-hand, and I'd seen it
      elsewhere, so I picked it up first to converse with her, and then continued
      on with it.)

      Let's concentrate on the following three features involving the number 70
      (bearing in mind that saying 42 occupies line 280 and saying 11.1 occupies
      all of line 70 and most of line 69):

      1. The Greek word PARAGE occurs at the end of both lines 70 and 280.
      2. Line 280 contains the 42nd occurrence of 'IS' and 42 +280/10 = 70.
      3. The total size of sayings 42 and 11.1 is 70 letters (24 + 46).

      There are independent reasons for believing that the number 42 might have
      meant something special to the authors of CGTh, but I'll leave that aside
      for now. What I want to discuss here is probability. I used the phrase
      "independent but interrelated [features]" three times in my note to Dave
      Hindley, because it's important. In assessing the probability of more than
      one feature (or event) occurring randomly in the same time and place, the
      general formula is to take the product of the individual probabilities. But
      that's only the case if the features/events are _independent_ of each
      other - that is, that for each feature F in the list, no other feature or
      combination of features either causes F or otherwise significantly affects
      its individual probability. So my first claim is that the features 1-3 above
      are independent of each other. Any one or two of them could have occurred
      without the third one occurring, and without increasing its probability of
      occurring.

      This is leading up to something. I'm not sure that you and other realize the
      kind of results one gets when calculating the probability of a _group_ of
      independent features/events occuring at the same time and place (in this
      case, the text of CGTh). Admittedly, I'm not sure what the individual
      probability of each of the features 1-3 occurring randomly is, but let's
      suppose for the sake of argument that they're all 10%. Then the probability
      of 1-3 ALL occurring in CGTh randomly is .1 x .1 x .1 = .001, i.e., one
      tenth of one percent. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't assent to a proposition
      if you knew that its chances of being true were only one in 1000, so the
      only out seems to be to show that the individual probabilities of 1-3 are
      significantly greater than 10%. Personally, from the investigations I've
      done, they don't seem to be, but I would welcome further discussion on that
      point, since it seems to me to be crucial.

      One other thing on probability: In my phrase "independent but interrelated",
      the word 'interrelated' is imporant as well, since it, too, affects the
      probability of intentionality. The features 1-3 all involve the number 70.
      If they hadn't, then the probability of randomness would be as above. But
      since they do, the probability of intentionality increases significantly,
      even beyond the hypothetical 99.9%. For what are the chances that the same
      number 70 would be involved in all three features if that hadn't been
      intentional?

      Realizing at this point that I've probably already failed the succinctness
      test, I may at least be able to remove one impediment to the persuasiveness
      of the case. On several occasions, I've used the phrase 'gematria-value'
      (e.g., the "gematria-value" of IS is 210, of KOSMOS 600), and I fear that
      the word 'gematria' may be off-putting. There's nothing mysterious about
      it, though - and maybe a better phrase would be 'letter-value' - since I'm
      basically talking about the value of a word based on the value of its
      letters within the Greek letter-number system in wide use at the time.
      (A picture being worth a thousand words, I'd suggest that folks not
      acquainted with the system take a look at
      http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9068/x_fonts.htm ).
      (The Hebraic letter-number system - the basis of gematria - was similar in
      structure, but gave a different value to some Hebraic letters than the
      Greek system assigned to their counterparts.)

      Frankly, I haven't undertaken the tedious task of calculating the
      letter-values of all the words - or even all the Greek words - in CGTh. Of
      the ones I have calculated, not many of them have such nice values as IS and
      KOSMOS, so I don't expect to find nice letter-values behind every key word
      in CGTh, but I did get a surprise today when I calculated the letter-value
      of PARAGE. Turns out that it's 190. Not very suggestive in itself, but (1)
      IS + PARAGE = 400, and (2) the IS numbers in the four line set 66-70 are
      9 and 10 - the end of the units level in the Greek number system, and the
      beginning of the 10's level. That's going astray from what you wanted,
      Andrew, but since it's a new item relevant to the L42-L11.1 connection, I
      thought I'd mention it.

      Hopefully, all this - though more than you wanted - at least passes the
      clarity test. The case isn't easy to state succinctly, but more importantly,
      unless one understands the ideas of probability behind it, and accepts that
      the authors were very likely much more sensitive to the symbolism of
      numbers - and of the numeric values of words - than we are, a succint
      statement would certainly fail to persuade. Aren't you glad you asked,
      though? (:-)

      Mike Grondin
      Mt. Clemens, MI
    • Judy Redman
      ... It s interesting what one takes for granted! In my reading, I ve seen logion/logia abbreviated as L frequently enough to assume that it was a
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 6, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Mike says:

        > (BTW, 'L' stands for 'logion'.
        > Judy Redman used that short-hand, and I'd seen it elsewhere,
        > so I picked it up first to converse with her, and then
        > continued on with it.)

        It's interesting what one takes for granted! In my reading, I've seen
        logion/logia abbreviated as L frequently enough to assume that it was a
        commonly-accepted abbreviation in GThos discussions. My supervisor
        certainly hasn't questioned it when I've presented written work. Now that I
        come to think of it, though, I've also seen a reasonable number of people
        refer to sayings rather than logia and not abbreviate. How unusual is this
        use of L?

        Judy

        --
        "One can easily understand a child who is afraid of the dark. The real
        tragedy of life is when grown men and women are afraid of the light." -
        Plato

        Rev Judy Redman
        Uniting Church Chaplain
        University of New England
        Armidale 2351
        ph: +61 2 6773 3739
        fax: +61 2 6773 3749
        web: http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
        email: jredman@...


        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Grondin
        > Sent: Monday, 6 March 2006 6:12 PM
        > To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Block Sizes
        >
        >
        > [Andrew B]:
        > > Alright, I'm probably going to regret this, but go ahead and try to
        > > convince me from the relationship between L42 and L11.1 that your
        > > design theory is plausible (and clarify what "L" stands
        > for). I don't
        > > have time to go digging through archives so you'll have to restate
        > > your case. Please be succinct and clear.
        >
        > I'll do my best, but I'm very much afraid you'll find the
        > result unsatisfactory, Andrew. There are quite a few textual
        > features related to sayings 42 and 11.1, and I haven't yet
        > been able to figure the best way to organize them for
        > presentation. In addition, there are two items that need to
        > be clarified - one about probability and one about
        > "gematria-values". Hopefully, I can work those in without too
        > much loss of succinctness.
        >
        > Let's concentrate on the following three features involving
        > the number 70 (bearing in mind that saying 42 occupies line
        > 280 and saying 11.1 occupies all of line 70 and most of line 69):
        >
        > 1. The Greek word PARAGE occurs at the end of both lines 70
        > and 280. 2. Line 280 contains the 42nd occurrence of 'IS' and
        > 42 +280/10 = 70. 3. The total size of sayings 42 and 11.1 is
        > 70 letters (24 + 46).
        >
        > There are independent reasons for believing that the number
        > 42 might have meant something special to the authors of CGTh,
        > but I'll leave that aside for now. What I want to discuss
        > here is probability. I used the phrase "independent but
        > interrelated [features]" three times in my note to Dave
        > Hindley, because it's important. In assessing the probability
        > of more than one feature (or event) occurring randomly in the
        > same time and place, the general formula is to take the
        > product of the individual probabilities. But that's only the
        > case if the features/events are _independent_ of each other -
        > that is, that for each feature F in the list, no other
        > feature or combination of features either causes F or
        > otherwise significantly affects its individual probability.
        > So my first claim is that the features 1-3 above are
        > independent of each other. Any one or two of them could have
        > occurred without the third one occurring, and without
        > increasing its probability of occurring.
        >
        > This is leading up to something. I'm not sure that you and
        > other realize the kind of results one gets when calculating
        > the probability of a _group_ of independent features/events
        > occuring at the same time and place (in this case, the text
        > of CGTh). Admittedly, I'm not sure what the individual
        > probability of each of the features 1-3 occurring randomly
        > is, but let's suppose for the sake of argument that they're
        > all 10%. Then the probability of 1-3 ALL occurring in CGTh
        > randomly is .1 x .1 x .1 = .001, i.e., one tenth of one
        > percent. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't assent to a proposition
        > if you knew that its chances of being true were only one in
        > 1000, so the only out seems to be to show that the individual
        > probabilities of 1-3 are significantly greater than 10%.
        > Personally, from the investigations I've done, they don't
        > seem to be, but I would welcome further discussion on that
        > point, since it seems to me to be crucial.
        >
        > One other thing on probability: In my phrase "independent but
        > interrelated", the word 'interrelated' is imporant as well,
        > since it, too, affects the probability of intentionality. The
        > features 1-3 all involve the number 70. If they hadn't, then
        > the probability of randomness would be as above. But since
        > they do, the probability of intentionality increases
        > significantly, even beyond the hypothetical 99.9%. For what
        > are the chances that the same number 70 would be involved in
        > all three features if that hadn't been intentional?
        >
        > Realizing at this point that I've probably already failed the
        > succinctness test, I may at least be able to remove one
        > impediment to the persuasiveness of the case. On several
        > occasions, I've used the phrase 'gematria-value' (e.g., the
        > "gematria-value" of IS is 210, of KOSMOS 600), and I fear
        > that the word 'gematria' may be off-putting. There's nothing
        > mysterious about it, though - and maybe a better phrase would
        > be 'letter-value' - since I'm basically talking about the
        > value of a word based on the value of its letters within the
        > Greek letter-number system in wide use at the time. (A
        > picture being worth a thousand words, I'd suggest that folks
        > not acquainted with the system take a look at
        > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9068/x_fonts.htm ). (The
        > Hebraic letter-number system - the basis of gematria - was
        > similar in structure, but gave a different value to some
        > Hebraic letters than the Greek system assigned to their counterparts.)
        >
        > Frankly, I haven't undertaken the tedious task of calculating
        > the letter-values of all the words - or even all the Greek
        > words - in CGTh. Of the ones I have calculated, not many of
        > them have such nice values as IS and KOSMOS, so I don't
        > expect to find nice letter-values behind every key word in
        > CGTh, but I did get a surprise today when I calculated the
        > letter-value of PARAGE. Turns out that it's 190. Not very
        > suggestive in itself, but (1) IS + PARAGE = 400, and (2) the
        > IS numbers in the four line set 66-70 are 9 and 10 - the end
        > of the units level in the Greek number system, and the
        > beginning of the 10's level. That's going astray from what
        > you wanted, Andrew, but since it's a new item relevant to the
        > L42-L11.1 connection, I thought I'd mention it.
        >
        > Hopefully, all this - though more than you wanted - at least
        > passes the clarity test. The case isn't easy to state
        > succinctly, but more importantly, unless one understands the
        > ideas of probability behind it, and accepts that the authors
        > were very likely much more sensitive to the symbolism of
        > numbers - and of the numeric values of words - than we are, a
        > succint statement would certainly fail to persuade. Aren't
        > you glad you asked, though? (:-)
        >
        > Mike Grondin
        > Mt. Clemens, MI
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------------------------
        > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
        > To unsubscribe from this group,
        > send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.