Page 8 of 21

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:20 am
by Secret Alias
Here are some diagram's from the Roman system of counting associated with Bede:
One of the most significant figures in the development of this tradition was the Northumbrian monk Bede (673/74-735) who wrote an important text on the calculation of time entitled De Temporum Ratione (725). Along with a series of calendar tables traditionally appended to it, the text often included a representation of Bede’s system of finger calculation, an elaborate version of learning to count from one to ten using one’s fingers. In this fourteenth-century version from Italy, the hand gestures are demonstrated by a series of figures, each labelled with a number. Note that the final figure in the middle row switches to using his right hand to represent the number 100 (Roman numeral C) – numbers from 1-99 were indicated by the left hand, from 100 up the right hand was used and the hands could be used to demonstrate numbers up to 9,999. There was even an indication for 1 million – the hands were clasped together with the fingers interlaced.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:46 am
by Secret Alias
Apparently there were other passages in the gospel (besides the '99 sheep') which demonstrated a Roman provenance to the gospel as a whole. From Bede citing Jerome:

Before discussing the basics of the calculation of time, we have decided to demonstrate a few things, with God's help, about that very useful and easy skill of flexing the fingers, so that when we have conveyed maximum facility in calculation, we may then, with our readers' understanding better prepared, attain equal facility in investigating and explaining the sequences of time through calculations. For one ought not to despise or treat lightly that rule with which almost all the exegetes of Holy Scripture have shown themselves well acquainted, no less than they are with verbal expressions. Many have said other things [on this topic], and even Jerome, that translator of the sacred narrative, says in his treatise on the evangelical precept1 (and [Jerome] did not hesitate to take up the aid of its discipline): The thirty-fold, sixty-fold and hundredfold fruit,though born /269/of one earth and one seed, nevertheless differ vastly as to number. Thirty refers to marriage, for this conjunction of fingers depicts husband and wife, wrapped and linked in a tender kiss. Sixty refers to widows, because their position is one of confinement and tribulation; hence they are pressed down against the upper finger, for the more the will of a [sexually] experienced person suffers in abstaining from sin, the greater the reward. Finally the hundred-fold number (pay careful attention, reader, I pray!) is transferred from the left hand to the right, and symbolizes the crown of virginity by making a circle with the same fingers, but not on the same hand, by which marriage and widowhood are signified on the left hand.
2
So when you say ‘‘one’’, bend the little ¢nger of the left hand and fix it on the middle of the palm. When you say ‘‘two’’, bend the second from the smallest ¢nger and fix it on the same place. When you say ‘‘three’’, bend the third one in the same way. When you say ‘‘four’’, lift up the little ¢nger again. When you say ‘‘five’’, lift up the second from the smallest in the same way. When you say ‘‘six’’, you lift up the third finger, while only the ¢nger in between, which is called medicus, 3 is fixed in the middle of the palm. When you say ‘‘seven’’, place the little finger only (the others being meanwhile raised), on the base of the palm. When you say ‘‘eight’’, put the medicus beside it. When you say /270/ ‘‘nine’’, add the middle ¢nger. When you say ‘‘ten’’, touch the nail of the index finger to the middle joint of the thumb. When you say ‘‘twenty’’, you insert the tip of the thumb between the middle joints of the index and middle fingers. When you say ‘‘thirty’’, you join the tips of the index and middle fingers in a gentle embrace. When you say ‘‘forty’’, you pass the under side of the thumb over the side or top of the index finger while holding both erect. When you say ‘‘fifty’’, you rest the thumb, bent at the last joint into the shape of the Greek letter gamma, against the palm. When you say ‘‘sixty’’, you carefully encircle the thumb, bent as before, by curving the index finger forward. When you say ‘‘seventy’’, you fill the index ¢nger, bent as before, by inserting the thumb, with its nail upright, through the middle joint of the index finger. When you say ‘‘eighty’’, you fill the index ¢nger, curved as before, with the thumb extended full length and its tip placed against the middle joint of the index finger. When you say ‘‘ninety’’, you place the tip of your bent index finger against the base of your upright thumb. So much for the left hand. You make one hundred on the right hand the way you make ten on the left, two hundred on the right the way you make twenty on the left, three hundred on the right the way you make thirty on the left, and the rest in the same manner up to nine hundred. You make one thousand on the right hand the way you make one on the left, two thousand on the right hand the way you make two on the left, three thousand on the right hand the way you make three on the left, and so forth up to nine thousand. Then when you say ‘‘ten thousand’’, you place your left hand £at on the middle of your chest, /271/ but with the ¢ngers pointing upwards to the neck. When you say ‘‘twenty thousand’’, place the same hand, spread out sideways, on your chest. When you say ‘‘thirty thousand’’, place it flat but upright with the thumb on the breastbone.When you say‘‘forty thousand’’, turn it on its back upright against the belly.When you say‘‘fifty thousand’’, lay it £at but upright, with your thumb against your belly. When you say ‘‘sixty thousand’’, grasp your left thigh with your flattened hand. When you say ‘‘seventy thousand’’, turn [your hand] on its back on your thigh. When you say ‘‘eighty thousand’’, lay it £at on your thigh. When you say ‘‘ninety thousand’’, grasp your hip with your thumb turned towards the groin. One hundred thousand, two hundred thousand and so forth up to nine hundred thousand, you perform in the same manner as we said, but on the right side of the body. When you say ‘‘one million’’, cross your two hands, linking your thumbs together.4 http://ceulearning.ceu.edu/pluginfile.p ... f_Time.pdf

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:53 am
by Secret Alias
For those who need pictures

Image

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:08 am
by Secret Alias
Maybe Peter can help fix the image. I don't see why 'sixty' is that special in the system. It would seem however that the 30 and the 100 are related (mirror images of one another on each hand). Since there seems to be some relationship between this Roman counting method and the pattern of composition in Mark and the fact that this is 'mystical' knowledge, one could make an argument (assuming that the counting system has a Roman provenance) that the gospel of Mark was composed in Rome.

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:12 am
by Secret Alias
While it is true that Arabs and Middle Eastern people have almost the same counting system it is reversed. https://books.google.com/books?id=RXbCA ... st&f=false The reversal is important.

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:18 am
by Ben C. Smith
Secret Alias wrote:Maybe Peter can help fix the image.
Image

Better?

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:49 am
by Secret Alias
Yes parfait. So if you go to that link we see evidence from much older Roman writers which make the association with finger counting and the number 100 being placed as the first number of the right hand (after counting 1 - 99 on the left). Juvenal (c 130 CE) writes:

Happy is he who so many times over the years has cheated death
And now reckons his age on the right hand.

Is this the final proof that Mark was written in Rome?

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:50 am
by Secret Alias
And I am wrong about 30 and 100 being mirrors of one another. 30 and 300 are.

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:53 am
by Secret Alias
The point for this thread is that Hegesippus if coming to Rome heard the explanation about the 99 and the 100 (or for that matter Jerome's 30, 60 and 100 parable or Augustine's explanation of the 153) this would help explain the specific reference to the first gnostic tradition being in Rome. He would have encountered a specifically Roman kabbalah which would have shocked him I imagine.

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:17 am
by Secret Alias
And I know this is where I get in trouble with others at the forum but ...

Doesn't that imply that Mark's specific mention of the 30, 60, 100 wasn't in the gospel of Hegesippus's community?

And here's where I get in more trouble with the group.

The fact that the 100 and 99 sheep is only found in Matthew and Luke ... doesn't show how contrived the surviving gospel arrangement is? Meaning, 'Mark' - and specifically the existence of a 'secret Mark' where Mark added mystical bits to a pre-existent gospel of Peter (cf. Philosophemena on Marcion's mystical Mark, to Theodore) is specifically avoided.

Now I know I will be accused of 'attacking the evidence' - viz. because the theory of a 'Roman gnosis' via the Roman counting method needs the 100 and 99 to be found in Mark to sustain a Roman origin for Mark. But surely we have all the pieces already in place. The group that preserved the Roman counting method 'mysticism' was 'of Mark.' The same group says that the 'sixth' hour of Jesus execution points to the episemon and only Mark has been changed. Now the same absence is sound with the most Roman gnostic example. Does anyone really believe that Matthew was the first to add this to his gospel? Of course not. The 'accepted' gospels were rigged to avoid perpetuating knowledge of 'secret Mark.' Now let the attacks begin.