User talk:Bethsheba Ashe/Archive 2023

Gematria
Gematria is my special subject. I've spent the last seven years in scholarly research on the subject. I have a blog with the Times of Israel about it, and recently published the most thorough and comprehensive study of the field to date. I was encouraged to contribute my expertise by other contributors to the page. I left my edits uncited and hoped that another editor would cite them. However decided to delete one of my contributions rather than add a citation because it is his opinion that I'm wrong about gematria mainly counting the nouns. Obviously, he has a book to share on the subject? A blog? Or work to show that his "opinion" is more qualified than my own evidence based research? No? I didn't think so.

That page on Gematria is currently a travesty of the truth. People around here really need to pull their socks up, their fingers out, and get down to the proper study of the fields about which they are supposed to be writing about and editing. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * First point: your expertise is irrelevant here and there is no need for us to judge it. Everything we put into articles has to be cited to a "reliable source" (which is a Wikipedia concept with its own peculiarities, see WP:RS and the discussions on WP:RSN). Second point: you didn't provide a source for your sentence. What you did was link to a compilation of 10 of your blogs and videos, without identifying where the claim can be found. That's self-promotion, about which see WP:COI, rather than sourcing. Third point: You wrote "unlike numerology, gematria sums are usually derived from a written text" which claims two things, namely that gematria is not a form of numerology (which it obviously is) and that numerology does not derive numerical sums from written texts (which it often does). The assertion about nouns is not really interesting or surprising since most of the meaning in a text appears in the nouns. Examples like "I have sojourned"=613 (Bereshit Rabbati, 145) are expected to be fewer. Zerotalk 03:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * As to your first point, I believe that's moving the goalposts. I respectfully submit that your decision whether to cite my contribution to the page or delete them is subjective.


 * I don't contest point Two, except to say that I didn't provide an exact source because I anticipated you would have deleted it anyway under the rule that authors should not cite themselves (which was the reason I left it uncited in the first place). I hope after you've read the rest of my reply you will consider improving the page and using some my work as a source to correct the high level of misinformation on the Gematria page.


 * Where you are going wrong in your third point is your assumption that Gematria is numerology. The Gematria of the Bible is a formal system of early mathematics that features (to our modern eyes) cryptographic elements but was likely considered "just math" by biblical scribes. We don't consider any sort of formal mathematical system to be numerology. This fact has not been widely appreciated because Mispar Hechrechi was not used in the Tanakh. Mispar Hechrechi is actually a cover-cipher. It allowed the most educated Rabbis to speak of the gematria of the Tanakh in coded terms in the Talmud and Mishnah - apparently using Mispar Hechrechi but expecting that anyone who knew the biblical cipher would recalculate with the correct cipher. The Biblical cipher only had two letters (shin and tav) with different values from Hechrechi so calculations in both ciphers could be done quicky.


 * The formal system of Gematria in the Tanakh used only the values of the nouns in their calculations. Types of calculation were indicated by some (not all) verbs and prepositions. Adjectives were filler. Some nouns had a set value. For instance, no matter how you spell 'serpent' in hebrew, the word has the set value of 50. These words with set values are usually related to the appearance of the letters in the Proto-Consonantal script, for instance the letter nun in the PCS is a serpent. The system also features flag-words; these were words that could function to alert readers to the presence of gematria in the text, or could be used to define other words that were not to be counted, etc. They're a functional part of Gematria in the Bible.


 * You could argue that post antiquity, Gematria was assumed to be numerology by most people, and I would not contest the point. You can say that many kabbalists made the same assumptions, and that today what is often presented as Gematria is actually numerology. That is quite true. But regarding specifically the Gematria of the Bible (both Tanakh and New Testament) the Gematria is most definately not numerology.


 * The Gematria of the Bible often accompanied Notariqon and Temurah, so to improve the wiki page that ought to be mentioned.


 * Two examples:


 * Genesis 1:1:
 * בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית + אֱלֹהִ֑ים + הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם + הָאָֽרֶץ = 700.
 * Note that the words: ברא את ואת all indicate addition.
 * Using Notariqon with the reversal cipher (which is like Atbash):
 * ב + ב + א + א + ה + ו + ה = 800.


 * Genesis 1:2:
 * והארץ + היתה+ תהו + ובהו = 360
 * 800 = פני - וחשך + תהום + ב + אלהים אלהים + פני המים
 * Note that the word עַל 'upon' indicated subtraction, that the word וְר֣וּחַ 'and the spirit' is a set word with the value of 2, and that מְרַחֶ֖פֶת 'hovering' indicated multiplication by 2 of the prior word (which is אלהים 'Elohim').
 * Again, there is an example of Notariqon with the reversal cipher:
 * ו ה ת ו ו ע פ ת ו א מ ע פ ה = 666


 * For more examples of formal gematria in the Bible, please consult the Shematria Gematria Calculator, my blog, or my book "Behold! The Art and Practice of Gematria" which is a 'How to', and please note that every flag-word, calculating word, and mnemonic word (word with a set value) has been cross checked to establish its conventional use. Gematria in the Tanakh is mostly found in Genesis, but also appears in Exodus, Kings, Job, the Gospels of Matthew, John, and Revelation.


 * Have a great day. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * All decisions have a subjective component and that is not under dispute. Also, my personal opinion has no more right to be in the article than yours does. But your reply makes me more certain than before that your opinion does not belong. What the article should consist of is a history of gematria and an explanation, with examples, of how gematria was used by the great sages of history. What you can discover yourself is not admissible; it is original research in Wikipedia terminology. (Now begins my opinion.) Gematria consists of looking for numerical coincidences and adducing meaning from them. The key part is "coincidences". There is no actual evidence that the writers of the Tanach used gematria to add information to the text beyond what the words say. There is only a lot of coincidences that people have decided without evidence to be deliberate. The 1-9,10-90,100-400 enumeration of the alphabet (copied from the Greeks) is unknown from before the Hashmonean period and discoveries of gematria coincidences date from the tannaic period. The fact is that if you have a whole lot of small numbers, then so many of them will be the same by pure chance that an endless supply of "meaningful" coincidences is available. That is what a mathematical statement looks like. Calling gematria "mathematics" is really stretching the definition of mathematics. Best wishes. Zerotalk 12:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Whilst it may be your "opinion" that gematria consists of looking for numerical coincidences, it is a fact that the biblical practice was nothing of the sort. Against your claim that there is "no actual evidence" - I have an entire database of actual evidence for gematria in the Tanakh and New Testament (see Shematria), and besides the calculations themselves, there is also evidence in the language of the hebrew bible. Take (for instance) the word ממנו ‘minmennu’, which is usually just translated as ‘from’ in the Bible. It comes from the root מנה ‘manah’ (strongs 4487) which means ‘to count, number, or reckon’. ממנה is a preposition that means ‘from the number’, or ‘from the count’. But when biblical translators use ממנו or ממנה they tend to only translate their prefix ‘mem’ (‘from’) and ignore the rest of the word. Minmennu actually means ‘from his number/portion/measure’." You find it the Garden of Eden story amid the gematria, and it changes the meaning of the translation of the text. It is an open reference to counting and measuring that gets totally lost in translation, but this casual reference to the art is exactly what we would expect to see in a readership that practiced gematria themselves, with little secrecy save a needed familiarity with the rules and conventions of the art. And they would have read the text and been able to read and reproduce the exact calculation that was set down by the biblical scribe and come to the exact sum. That is mathematics, not a coincidence. Some gematria calculations span verses or chapters and these very long constructions often have obvious features of interest, for instance, Proverbs 31:10-31 has an obvious alphabetic acrostic that provides the structure of a gematria sum. The Shemhamphorash sums to 9000 with the Reversal Cipher and this sum symbolized the birth of the nation of Israel. No, I'm sorry but gematria in the Bible passes all the criteria of a formal system. It passes the threshold of reasonable doubt by a mile, so I find your position to be unreasonable and/or uninformed. History is our understanding of the past. You are right that Standard Gematria didn't happen before Hashmonean period, but that is because a different cipher was being used in the Tanakh.


 * I'm a member of the American Cryptogram Association. You seem to be missing the point that by changing their cipher, the Sages ensured the secrecy of the gematria in the Tanakh. It had to do with guarding the sacredness of God. When it comes to enciphered text, "history" is not always a faithful reporter upon itself, but in that case, isn't it the job of a wiki to be a faithful reporter of that too so that the "history" is presented in a balanced and unbiased manner? Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bethsheba Ashe. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Gematria, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Skyerise,
 * I've just checked the page, and I see that you appear to be in some sort of edit war with an anonymous user in Virginia who was talking about my research into gematria and using information from my book? I know how it looks but I'm all Bart Simpson over here (in Pennsylvania). I hope the anonymous user logs in next time and puts the section back up. It was well written, and if you check the talk page I've been asking for editors to consider me as an appropriate source for a long time. As far as I'm aware that's how things should work around here.
 * While we're discussing the gematria page, lets discuss the recent edits I did make on the 27th May. Note that I kept totally away from the subject of my own research, and using my general knowledge of the subject I added the Mathers table and referenced the wide use of the transliterated ciphers made by various esoteric groups. Why have you deleted that? It was useful and relevant information!
 * While I was doing so I checked your reference to John Dee's supposed mentioned of the Agrippa code in Theorem XVI of his 1564 book, Monas Hieroglyphica, because I thought that was very interesting. And guess what? There was no mention of it. Maybe Hamilton-Jones imagined there was link, but I can't see it. I reproduce the material in full here for you (sourced from the web: http://newporttowermuseum.com/resources/Monas-Hieroglyphica-in-English.pdf):
 * THEOR. 16 We must now briefly Philosophize on our assertions about this noble CROSS. Though our CROSS has been made, as we have said, from two straight lines of equal length, they do not divide each other into equal lengths. In the Mystical distribution of our Cross, we wanted equal parts and unequal parts. However, hidden in the power of these Two lines divided this way is also the virtue of an Equilateral CROSS (because the two lines are of equal Length). Generally speaking, a certain JUSTICE of NATURE demands that when a CROSS is made from two lines of equal Length, they should be divided Crosswise equally. In accordance with this Justice, we shall propose the following ideas about the Equilateral Cross (which is just like the twenty-first letter of the Latin Alphabet.) On this Rectiliniar, Rectangular and Equilateral CROSS, when any Straight dividing line goes through the point of intersection separating Oppositely placed angles, the parts on each side of the dividing line are similar and equal. The resulting parts are the same shape as the letter that the Latins accepted as their FIFTH vowel, and was commonly used among the most Ancient Latin Philosophers to denote QUINARIUM [the number 5]. And I think that it was not done by them Irrationally, as it Conforms to the Middle of our DENARIUM [the number 10]. Each of these two parts (from this Hypothetical division of the Cross) represents the number FIVE [Roman Numeral V], one of which is upright, and the Other is upside-down. This reminds us of a Multiplication, which is the Squaring of Square Roots (which here falls wonderfully on a CIRCULAR NUMBER, the number FIVE). Most certainly this produces TWENTY-FIVE (and it [the letter V] is both the twentieth letter and the fifth vowel). We shall now consider another orientation of the equilateral CROSS which is similar to our MONADIC CROSS. If a similar Division of the Cross into two halves is made, (as above), the twin symbols of another Letter of the Latin Alphabet is revealed. One of them is upright, and the other is upside-down and backwards. This letter (from the ancient custom of the Latins) has been used to represent FIFTY.	 It seems to me that this sign was established first, because the sign for FIVE was essentially derived from the sign for TEN of Our Cross, and from a Place where that Cross, the Greatest of all Mysteries, is the most Consummate Hieroglyphical Sign. Thus, EMBRACING the Strength of TEN and the virtue of FIVE, it rejoices, and brings forth the NUMBER FIFTY. O, MY GOD, HOW GREAT ARE THESE MYSTERIES? Furthermore, the Name of that Letter, EL [letter L], seems to respect the Denarian virtue of the Cross as it has been placed in the Middle Position between the first Letter of the Alphabet and the letter which makes the Denarian Cross, being Tenth in sequence from either letter [L is halfway between A and X]. And since we have shown that there are two such integral parts of the CROSS (considering now their numerical meaning) it’s apparent that the CENTARIUM is produced [the number 100]. But if, by the Law of Squares they [the two letter L’s or the two 50’s] are multiplied by each other, our result is Two-Thousand-Five-Hundred. If this SQUARE NUMBER [2500] is divided by the previously mentioned Square of the first Circular Number [5 times 5, or 25] it will bring us back to the CENTENARIUM [2500 ÷25 = 100]. Thus, the CROSS, explaining itself by its DENARIAN Strength, will be perceived as referring to CENTURIO [the number 100]. Therefore we are now taught (besides other things worthy of being noted) by these Theories of the CROSS to enumerate and proceed in this manner: One, Ten, Hundred. We are carried upwards by the DENARIAN Symmetry of the CROSS. Nevertheless, as the Character of the CROSS is unique, it also represents One.
 * See? No reference to Agrippa at all. So that's why I removed the reference, and to my knowledge Agrippa's cipher wasn't used until Gematrix.org came online in 2010 and called it "Jewish Gematria" for some reason. Thankfully I hear they've stopped doing that now, but it caused problems for Jews while it was misnamed due to extremely right wing conspiracy theorists playing with old Nazi tropes... Urgh. I don't even. Nevertheless, I left the cipher up on the page and added what I thought was an extremely mild and true comment reflecting how the cipher wasn't used till 2010, and I think if you have any evidence to the contrary you should add it to the page or admit that there isn't any evidence it was used prior to that time. If you have any evidence I'd be interested, but as far as I know most people used the transliterated cipher (and still do) because if you're not Jewish then its useful when you want to look up Hebrew words of the Bible and transliterate them to a writing script you're used to.
 * I also note that you appear to have left a paragraph without any context under your Agrippa table. This:
 * "Since the death of Aleister Crowley (1875–1947), a number of people have proposed numerical ciphers for the purposes of English numerology with The Book of the Law. The English Qaballa discovered by English magician James Lees in 1976 is the topic of a number of books by Cath Thompson. There are also other, less popular, forms of English Qabalah."
 * It doesn't make any sense. It's just left floating there. As I said in my edit (the one you deleted), Crowley openly used the transliterated standard cipher in all his commentaries on the Book of the Law. Now, I and a number of other people have suggested he used a secret cipher with the Book of the Law and we have all proposed ciphers, but the way this is phrased a newbie to Gematria would wonder if Crowley used any cipher at all. Please don't get so focused on edit wars with random people that you lose sight of the intention of producing a quality page on the subject.
 * So, saying all that, would you mind putting the Mathers table back and sorting it out?
 * Thanks. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd just like to point out that encyclopedia writing is quite different from popular book writing. Everything we write about has to have been written about in a reliable source, and we have to cite that source when adding material to the article. "Common knowledge" is quite often wrong. Skyerise (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Links
For creating links to diffs please see Help:Diff. See also the useful page mw:Help:Links. —Alalch E. 22:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you Alalch. I'll do that. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks
You wrote: "Also, using "the average football player" visiting the page of HIS favourite player doesn't cut a lot of ice with a cis female/woman. 47% of wiki readers are women, but only 13% of editors are women. You've obviously been immersed in the boys club culture around here, so I request that you self-check the paternalism and re-orient your attitude." and "[you] sound over-bearing." Here's your first warning about personal attacks:

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)