groups, sometimes called 'perfect', 'deficient', and 'super-

abundant'. A "perfect number" (also so-called in modern

mathematics) is any number n whose "parts" (i.e., factors)

are equal to n itself - where the parts/factors of n include any

lesser whole number (including one) which evenly divides n.

Perfect numbers are few and far between. There's one

between 1 and 10 (viz., 6), one between 10 and 100

(viz., 28), one between 100 and 1000 (viz., 496) and

again only one between 1000 and 10000 (viz., 8128).

Interestingly, CGTh makes use of both of the first two

perfect numbers, as line 280 is also the 6th block of text.

This is to draw attention to the fact, all too easily overlooked,

that the makers of CGTh were familiar with mathematical

knowledge of the time, including notably the concept of

"sum of its parts". So when they and/or others before them

contemplated the relationship between the sacred names

IH and IS, they almost certainly must have realized that

the sum of the parts of IH (viz., 1,2,3,6,9) was 21. And as

pointed out in my earlier post, the number 21 would have

been intimately connected with 210, the value of IS.

There would, then, have been at least four numerical

connections known to exist between 18 and 21/210,

which would almost certainly have led to the conclusion

that the relationship between IH and IS was divinely-

ordained, so that if the use of one of them was pleasing

to God, then so was the other:

1. That the sum of the parts of IH was 21.

2. That there was a symmetrical progression between

18 (6+6+6), 21 (7+7+7), and 888 as value of IHSOUS.

3. That the sum of the first five prime numbers (1,2,3,5,7)

was 18, and that their product was 210.

4. That it was also true of the set of numbers {5,6,7} that its

sum was 18 and its product 210, and that that set was (by happy

circumstance or otherwise) the number of letters in the name

DIDYMOS IOUDAS QWMAS.

I'm quite convinced that the designers of CGTh were aware

of the connection between IH/18 and the Hebrew word for

'life'. Their emphasis on "he-who-lives" is testimony to that,

and insofar as sayings which involve that concept are considered

early, the thing as a whole must be considered so as well, IMO.

Nevertheless, the designers of CGTh chose to use IS in lieu

of IH. In fact, they used 105 IS's and IHS's altogether (three

of the latter), which reflects the numerical value of IS, so they

knew what they were doing - and it wasn't just translating.

As a rather old American expression has it, "they're at

sixes and sevens", indicating (I think) some kind of discord

between two basically different ways of looking at things.

Myself, I'm very much tempted to speculate that Jewish

Christians might have favored the use of IH because of its

close connection to the number 6, whereas the increasingly

numerous Gentile Christians tended to prefer the emphasis

on the number 7 represented by IS. Certainly the Letter of

Barnabas stresses the number 6 not only in connection with

the sacred name IH, but also in connection with the age of

the world (which he thought to be 6000 years). But while one's

choice of a sacred name abbreviation may have been seen

as a distinct difference between Jewish and Gentile Christians,

it's hard to see it as having been taken as a sign of schism,

given the numerous close connections between 18 and 21/210,

i.e., between IH and IS.

Mike Grondin

Mt. Clemens, MI