Talk:Gematria/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

English Gematria

After recent edits by Skyerise (and see my talk page please Skyerise), this section is woefully uninformative, messy and contains incorrect information. Skyerise has deleted the transliterated English cipher that was widely used both before and after the publication of Mathers 'Kabbalah Unveiled' by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. The history shows he deleted and replaced it with Agrippa's cipher because in his opinion it is "way more useful than transliterated Hebrew". He is entitled to his opinion but English gematria ciphers are not like the One Ring in Tolkien's epic fantasy. There is not one cipher to rule them all, and there is no call to delete the Mathers table from the page even if he thinks the Agrippa cipher should also be on the page.

His notes on the Agrippa cipher contain the following falsehood: "The Welsh magician John Dee makes reference to Agrippa's code in Theorem XVI of his 1564 book, Monas Hieroglyphica." And he cites Dee himself as a primary source for this. However, I have checked the material for Theor 16 of Monas Hieroglyphica and Dee makes no mention of Agrippa or his cipher, so while this is cited the citation is obviously false and a case of imaginative induction by Hamilton i.e. he's imagined there is a link. I will therefore be deleting this again. Moreover, to my knowledge this cipher was not used by anyone until 2010 where it was employed by the Gematrix calculator and woefully misnamed as 'Jewish Gematria". While the conspiracy theory community maintain the flight of fancy that Jews and Jesuits were using this cipher for nefarious purposes for hundreds of years, to my knowledge there is no evidence it was used at all between 1532 and 2010 and this wiki ought to reflect that fact.

Moreover, under the Agrippa cipher there is this lonely little orphan paragraph that now gives the impression that Aleister Crowley was using the Agrippa cipher:

"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."

I know Cath. She's a nice woman. But the EQ cipher is only one of half a dozen or more numerology ciphers that have been invented for use with the Book of the Law and its not even the most popular. Even she would acknowledge that the most commonly used English cipher historically and today is the English transliteration cipher that we see in the Mathers table. It was learned by Aleister Crowley and Crowley uses it extensively in his writings. Indeed, he openly used no other cipher but the transliterated cipher and he published the Mathers table himself. If you want to mention the ciphernaughts then you need to add context as to why these people were inventing ciphers to use with Crowley's work - i.e. you need to mention the riddle of II:76, and I warn you that you're opening a can of worms for this page if you do because there are many many people who claim to have solved it with their own ciphers. And if you cite one on this page then you will annoy all the rest, because there is not one claimant who is commonly acknowledged as the solver of that puzzle. I would advise against going there entirely lest this page go dramatically off topic.

I'm appending Theorum 16 in full sourced from: http://newporttowermuseum.com/resources/Monas-Hieroglyphica-in-English.pdf See - no mention of Agrippa!:

"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.

Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: Skyerise, we need not cite information that is uncontested. No-one is going to argue against this paragraph, as its common knowledge:

As a former member of the Golden Dawn, Aleister Crowley used the transliterated cipher extensively in his writings, and groups such as the Builders of the Adytum (B.O.T.A), the Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O), the A∴A∴ and many other organizations still use and teach this transliterated cipher to their members today.[citation needed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethsheba Ashe (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

First, you cannot add your personal opinions about whether the Agrippa code was used. In point of fact, it was used throughout the 16th century, but people encoding secret information in their writings don't advertise the fact. In general, you will find that reliable sources rarely make a negative claim like you want to add to the article. That's because it's almost impossible to prove that no one did something. Such a statement would have to be cited to a reliable historical overview of the subject. And you have a conflict of interest and seem to have a desire to demote some systems based on personal preference rather than coverage in sources.

Second, there is a main article on English Qabalah which lists all the other variants. Most of them shouldn't even be there, because they are sourced to self-published books and websites. Yes, there are a lot, but James Lees system is the only one written about in depth by third parties and published by publishers independent of the author. That in and of itself makes it the primary form of English Qabalah in Wikipedia's eyes. (Somebody had even added my own version of EQ cited to an old website of mine; I removed it.) As far as I know, none of the other forms have such secondary sources: only their creator has written about them, and mostly on their own websites or in self-published books. We should take little note of them in an encyclopedia until a third party writes an overview of them which gets published by a reputable publisher. The section in this article is a summary. If other Wikipedia editors were to apply a strict reading of the rules, Lees system would be the only one mentioned. As it is, the summary is perfectly correct and the details are in the main article, English Qabalah. Skyerise (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I have some sympathy with your view that "People encoding secret information in their writings don't advertise the fact", but if you're claiming that people used it throughout the 16th century then you need to cite something to back that up. Cryptographers break historical codes and ciphers all the time, and if the Agrippa cipher was really that popular, someone would have written about it and shown their work. Why not get in touch with the American Cryptography Society and ask? I'll not make that task more arduous for you by making a negative claim, but I have investigated some claims made about this cipher and found they were wishful thinking on the part of people writing conspiracy theory books, wanting to make a bigger case for their use of the Agrippa cipher that was warranted. It's a similar case to the books written by Kieran Barry 'The Greek Qabalah' where he claims that Hebrew Gematria is derivative from Greek Gematria. It was sensational, wrong, and made solely to sell books.

As to the rest, I'll see what third parties (by a reputable publisher) have written about English Qabalah. I have an extensive library, so if I find relative material I'll post it here for discussion. Thank you for the edit on the Mathers table btw. I was assuming that the sections were organized by writing script rather than language, but I see it makes more sense to organize them by language category. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No, don't post it here for discussion. Post it on Talk:English Qabalah. And you cannot add your negative claim to the article without a citation. Nor do I have to prove it false to make you omit it. You have to cite a reliable secondary source to include it. You are also close to violating our rule against edit warring, which can get you blocked from editing. Same with your conflict of interest. If you are really here to improve Wikipedia, you'll edit articles about other topics than in the area of your self-claimed expertise. Skyerise (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me? What conflict of interest? I have not written about myself, my family, friends, clients, employers, or my financial and other relationships. Unlike Cath Thompson who writes about her dead boyfriend/husband's Qabalah. You appear to have a double standard.

The edits I've made to this page are not in dispute, and are not points of contention by anyone.

And by the way, there are now third party books published by traditional publishers who are discussing and quoting from 'Behold' (which isn't self-published), so your "self-claimed" adjective is wrong too, and anyone should feel comfortable that they're well within the rules to quote third party sources for my research or quote my own writings as a third party source on others. Regardless, as long as I don't talk about my research and cite my own work in this wiki then there's no reason I shouldn't comment on generic points in connection with Gematria, as Largoplazo mentioned above. This wiki would be short of most of its academically sourced articles if it wasn't for my work on it.

I also note that on your talk page you're not in favour with many wiki editors. If there's been any edit warring, you seem to be the cause of it in most cases, and acting the innocent victim. Why don't we bring in a third party? Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this dispute now mostly resolved after the addition of certain citations by Bethsheba Ashe?—Alalch E. 21:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Regrettably, it doesn't appear so. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

English Qaballa

"Carol Smith" never existed. That was a pseudonym used by James Lees when he first wrote about the English Qaballa. More recent sources than that old reprinted Stratton-Kent article discuss this. Skyerise (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"Gematria cipher" "gematria alphabet"

Since gematria means "an alphabetic cipher", these turns of phrase are redundant and unnecessary. Gematria is a noun, not an adjective. Skyerise (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization

I've fixed the qabalistic terms, but the names of the Hebrew letters are also not proper nouns and should be all lowercase. Skyerise (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

They're proper nouns - which are usually capitalized. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The names of letters are not pronouns. They are not capitalized in the articles about them, except at the beginning of sentences. Proper presentation in English is lowercase with italics. I don't think they need to be changed in the tables, only in the text. Skyerise (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

.אני כן יודע עברית - Skyerise (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

All names are proper nouns and are usually capitalized. This is why you see YHVH and not yhvh as the name of God.

That's simply not correct: God's name is capitalized because It is considered a person. The letters are not persons. Again see the pages on the letters, where they are lowercase in italics. This is per our manual of style. Occultists capitalize the names of the letters. Scholars don't. Skyerise (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Not just occultists. Kabbalists see the Hebrew alphabet as Holy in its own right, and totally sublimated to God - in effect - angels/מַלְאָכִים.

“The Merkavah/Chariot, also literally means ‘Composition-Harkavah’ and refers to the compositions of the letters of expression which are “vehicles” that carry meaning, as mentioned before. […]Primarily, what should be understood here is that although all compositions (Merkavah) are drawn forth and rooted in Hashem’s name, the name of Hashem-יהו״ה itself completely transcends the compositions (Merkavah). Nevertheless, it should also be understood that the ‘chariot’ is totally sublimated to the Rider, who conducts it according to His will, blessed is He. Allegorically, this may be compared to how speech is totally sublimated the speaker and cannot exist without him.” - Joseph Gikatilla (Ginat Eroz).

It might be considered disrespectful not to capitalize them.

Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We're not believers here. Skyerise (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)r

Agrippa - Cum que in Romano alphabet ad complementum...

At the moment the sentence is: "In 1532, a second gematria which supports Latin, German, and English was defined by German Renaissance polymath Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa in his work De Occulta Philosopha (1532)."

The wording here introduces the idea that ciphers support language, which neither the reference nor the source supports. Agrippa is talking about the Roman alphabet (Romano alphabet) - aka the Latin alphabet. If you change it to start mentioning languages and then arbitrarily choose some, you leave out others. Why not mention, French, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, all the languages of Europe in fact? Unlike Hebrew and Greek, the Latin script is not language specific, so people (including Agrippa) refer to the script not any particular language.

Also - I've seen other sources mention 1533 for the date of De Occulta Philosopha, and if we can find another better source it would be good to mention that Agrippa's popularity helped to evolve the use of the extra letters over the next couple of centuries. Credit where credit is due. Let's not dumb this down. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Tell ya what. I'll agree to let it be moved to the Latin section, if you agree to stay in your lane and leave the English material alone. It's an evolution of the Matter of Britain - but nobody has written about that yet. I will also agree to follow your lead on the Latin material, and when I deem it properly supported, make the necessary changes in English Qabalah and English Qaballa so that they benefit from your knowledge as well. How's that? Skyerise (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and English Qabalah could really use some work. I'd be happy to collaborate with you to clean up the self-pub and expand on the others, which seem to have only a mention compared to the web-based entries. Do you think that article should be moved to English gematria? Skyerise (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

As a gesture of good faith, I've made some changes in the introduction of English Qabalah. Skyerise (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That's much better. Thank you for your diligent work on this page. It still needs more work but its shaping up nicely. I'm afraid I can't commit to a project as large as the English Qabalah page promises to be, but I will try to give as much assistance as I can - time permitting, and I'm happy to leave the English Qabalah section to you while I address the Hebrew and Greek sections next (again - time permitting). Your contributions are appreciated. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Philologos

What do you think about using Philologos as a source to introduce to the Etymology section? He notable enough to have a wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philologos

In his article here: "https://forward.com/culture/188750/your-days-are-numbered-and-so-is-just-about-everyt/" he says: "The ancient rabbis were well aware of this use of geometry. It is to it that, in Pirkei Avot or “The Ethics of the Fathers,” Rabbi Eliezer Hisma was referring when he said, “Tekufot [calendrical reckoning] and gimatriya’ot [geometrical algebra] are side dishes to wisdom.” Gematria thus came to mean the algebraic solution of mathematical problems, and eventually, simple arithmetic and the calculation of the numerical values of Hebrew words. This is the sense in which it entered Jewish tradition, in which both it and the technique it designates are still widely encountered today." Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Gematria - a late or early date?

I intend to introduce academic sources over the next few days that support an early (bronze age) date for gematria. I've started by introducing a table of Phoenician letter/number correspondences from Faulmann. I'll be citing Professors Petrovich, Overmann, Hurowitz, Knohl and Lieberman, and I'll also be working to present their more nuanced opinions. The original quotes from these sources were condensed until they say: "Scholars have identified gematria in the Hebrew Bible" which is not representative of their positions in their papers, and nothing like what had written a couple of years ago when I popped it in. I now consider these scholars to be misquoted, but please leave it for now so I don't have to re-enter the references, and I'll sort it out. Thanks.

Skyerise, I see you've added Aristotle, and material supporting a late date. Thank you. Well and good, but does it deserve to be on the second paragraph? Reads too argumentative for the first section. Can we keep it to history for now until everything is sorted out and see where we are? Also, can you put your sentence about the Canon being fixed somewhere else? In all fairness, because people (the average Joe and Jane) will think the compilation of the Canon reflects the date of composition for the various scrolls it may be misleading. I think it would be good to mention the various techniques that the Sopherim used to copy scrolls exactly, as well as the tradition of getting rid of them when they get old. Unlike the Greek New Testament there's a lot less scribal interpolation in the Tanakh, (although saying that I did notice that Exodus 7 used to use the 3 lettered holy name of YHV rather than YHVH just yesterday), and I think the matter of scribal interpolation is pertinent because if you significantly change a text written with gematria you're corrupting a math calculation. On the other hand, with gematria, as long as the interpolation is minor, you can see what has changed. Anyways - it's relevant. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This text accompanies the Faulmann table (the original is in German. I've used Google translate):

"According to Greek and Roman traditions, the alphabet script was invented in Phonicia, the oldest inscription written with phonetic characters is that of the Moabite king Me§a around 900 BC, it is based on an alphabet of 22 characters, whose names the Jews and Syrians, it seems to have been handed down quite faithfully. In my "New Investigations into the Origin of Letter Writing" I have shown, by comparison with the hieratic scripts of the Egyptians, that these names correspond to the characters and that the arrangement of the alphabet does not owe its existence to chance. The alphabet consists of three sections: ***there's a table here*** of which the first contains 8 characters, namely the basic sounds, while the second, also containing 8 sounds, lists the four sounds related to the first, with only a rearrangement of the last two rows, the throat and tongue sounds 3 ri p, i d ? x) has taken place. It is worth noting that these phonetic signs also contain number are characters, which explains the faithful transmission of the character string. My guess is that the invention of alphabet writing consisted in using these signs, which were known much earlier as numerals, to write words without mixing them with the syllable signs customary in Egypt or adding determinatives. Since this procedure did not result in the ambiguity that the Egyptians wanted to prevent with their determinatives, it was imitated by the neighboring peoples, who, however, mostly retained their usual numerals. In any case, this is the only way to explain the character change that is evident in some alphabets. Since it cannot be assumed that civilized peoples would have dispensed with the use of writing at all, but rather knew communication by means of individual signs, albeit imperfect and ambiguous, the use of numerals for sound designation seems to have been an invention that is reminiscent of the well-known story from Egg of Columbus remembered."

Page 77:

https://archive.org/details/dasbuchderschri01faulgoog/page/n92/mode/2up

Full reference:

Book title = DAS BUCH DER SCHRIFT ENTHALTEND DIE SCHRIFTZEICHEN IND ALPHABETE ALLER ZEITEN UND ALLER VOLKER DES ERDKREISES

Date = 1880

Publisher = K.K. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei

Digitizing sponsor = Google

Book from the collections of Oxford University

Language = German Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Note - Petrovich uses Faulmann as a reference.

Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Re "second paragraph" - we typically present chronology in historical order. Skyerise (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Re sources - all those 1800s texts are highly speculative because a lot of the historical details were unknown. A bronze age dating would be almost impossible to establish with more up to date sources, IMO. Skyerise (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Re Egypt: it seems fairly well established that letter numerals weren't used in Egypt until the Hellenistic period, and we typically go with the consensus opinion, not something qualified with a "my guess is". Skyerise (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It's only one source but his 'guess' was more than educated, based on a specific observation about the alphabet and he was correct, as we'll see. More tomorrow, with Professors Overmann, and if I can find the reference in time, Petrovich. They're both alive and kicking too.

Keep in mind that in every study that has ever been done, scholars have been investigating the Standard cipher and no other. This is something that obviously annoyed Lieberman, that some scholars would rule out that the Hebrews were using gematria on the basis that they couldn't find anything much with it. The proper scholarly attitude is to say their studies were non conclusive, rather than determine a negative. You also have to be careful with Greek scholars, as many of them have very little experience with Hebrew history. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I must also note that it seems fairly well established that until the use of Greek letters for numerals, alphabetic letters were not used to represent numbers: they used tally marks, which even eventually evolved into the Greek Herodianic system and Roman numerals. Skyerise (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Tally marks? :-)

"By the time there is linguistic insight into Semitic languages (proto-Semitic in the 4th millennium BCE), the counting system contains a term for 10,000, which indicates that the number system was well elaborated, socially useful, and much older than the 4th millennium BCE." - Overmann.

Tally marks. lol.

Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Aristotle cites Herodotus. But did he refer to leaves or Phoenicians?

Re: "Aristotle wrote that the Pythgoraean tradition, founded in the 6th century by Pythagoras of Samos, practiced Isopsephy, the Greek predecessor of gematria."

It's really not as set in stone as all that. He also says they learned it from the Phoenicians but...

"According to Herodotus, the expression phoinikeia grammata means ‘Phoenician letters’ and refers to the Phoenician origins of the Greek alphabet. This account has found general acceptance, but it is not the only interpretation possible and other theories circulated in antiquity. The adjective φοῖνιξ does not only mean ‘Phoenician’; it can also refer to a palm tree or the colour red. This article argues that the expression phoinikeia grammata did not originally refer to the alphabet, but to Linear B writing on palm leaves, as already suggested by Frederick Ahl. It is shown that the account of Herodotus is the result of a ‘learned reinterpretation’, triggered by the ambiguity of the word φοῖνιξ."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-hellenic-studies/article/deconstructing-the-phoenician-myth-cadmus-and-the-palmleaf-tablets-revisited/D4E45EBCCFD0177FAADF8047DA514BDE

The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 142 , November 2022 , pp. 219 - 254. Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 March 2023. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

We go with the sources. They have to be specifically about the use of letters as numerals. We don't allow original research that tries to connect the dots using multiple sources not speaking directly to the topic. In any case the Phoenician alphabet dates to c. 1050; Paleo Hebrew to c. 1000. The earliest example from archeology of letters used as numerals is 6th-century BCE vase graffiti, and Aristotle's report on Pythagoras. The Greek use in Miletus may date to the 8th century BCE. I'm certainly open to archeological evidence showing the use of Paleo-Hebrew letters as numbers in the 2 to 4 century window before Pythagoras. I have myself searched, but mostly find vague claims inspired by Kabbalistic claims to originating from Adam or Abraham. On the latter point, since he came from Ur, finding a link with Sumer is more likely than Egypt. Skyerise (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

You haven't been keeping up with the latest research from the last few years. Multiples finds meant they had to keep revising it back. The beginning of the alphabet is now dated to an origin 1900-1800 bce in Wadi el-Hol inscriptions, then there's a three hundred year gap and then its back in 1500 bce, and around 1300 bce it appears outside of Egypt in both the southern and northern levant. Specifically early alphabet with Hebrew too, since the Mt. Ebal tablet has YHV on it so not Canaanite. If I can get you the Petrovich ref he specifically shows an example of a letter Beth has the value of 2.

It's driving me nuts trying to remember where he said that, and his books are written in a tiny little script.

Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Re - Mt Ebal. Bronze age alphabet with hebrew writing. Here you go.

https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40494-023-00920-9?fbclid=IwAR1eKai5f9a3TZSZGl5zsCQX8_wTjH6U8Ya1uBDu0SpeByzrYjbGIEn7sso Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

In any case, the secondary source cited says specifically that Aristotle referred to the practice of isopsephy. Interpreting primary sources is not how things are done here: we follow the secondary sources. A good modern coverage of the topic, including several unsubstantiated theories for an earlier date, can be found in Rosenstock, B. (2017). Transfinite Life: Oskar Goldberg and the Vitalist Imagination. United States: Indiana University Press. Perhaps there will be something in there you could use? Though it dates the take up of the Milesian numbering system for use with Hebrew even later, saying the earliest evidence dates to 78 BCE. Skyerise (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Meh. Sounds like a Barry fanboy. Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)