|
A NEW INTRODUCTION TO
THE BODY OF TATHÂGATAS
alias
THE NEW TESTAMENT
by Chr. Lindtner
Klavreström 9/11 2003
Introduction
The best way to engage in a serious study of the four New Testament
Gospels, is, I claim, to start by counting the number of verses, the
number of words, the number of syllables and the number of letters that
the Greek text of course consists of. The Greek text is easily available,
even online.
You may be startled by my rather prosaic claim that one has to start by
counting the words, the syllables and the letters of God in the good news
of his son, Jesus Christ. None of the numerous modern introductions to
the New Testament start out by inviting the student to start counting.
When you start counting, however, you will soon see that the unknown
authors of the Gospels must have paid extreme attention to each word and
syllable, to their number and to their numerical value, what the Greeks
call psęphos. In a lecture published in 1970, the Dutch NT scholar Joost
Smit Sibinga observed, with regard to Matthew, that he, “...arranged
his text in such a way that the size of the individual sections is fixed
by a determined number of syllables. The individual parts of a sentence,
the sentences themselves, sections of a smaller and larger size, they
are, all of them, characterized in a purely quantitative way by their
number of syllables”.
Subsequent research, notably by Smit Sibinga himself, M.J.J. Menken and
others, have proved that Smit Sibinga´s observation applies not only to
Matthew but also to the other evangelists, probably even to all the 27
writings constituting the body of the NT.
A few examples already poited out by Menken and Smit Sibinga: John
1:19-2:11 is a unit having the size of 1550 syllables, which is also the
numerical value of ho Khristos (70+600+100+10+200+300+70+200 = 1550),
mentioned in John 1:20 & 25. Again, John 1:1-18 has the size of 496
syllables, identical with the numerical value of monogenęs
(40+70+50+70+3+50+8+200 = 496), mentioned in John 1:14 & 18.
Acts 26 consists of 1275 syllables, carefully arranged and calculated,
which is equal to the sum of the psęphos of the two main characters,
namely kurios (= 800) and Agrippas (= 475). It is hardly a matter of mere
coincidence, that the technical term psęphos occurs in 26:10.
Peter´s speech about Jesus in Acts 2: 14-36 consists of two halves of
each 444 syllables, giving us a total of 888 - the psęphos of ´Ięsous.
Some numbers are more important than others, of course. In 1972,
Christoph Rau pointed out that there are exactly 36 “I am” phrases in
John. Likewise, there are exactly 36 verbal forms in John 4:46-53.
Concentric patterns also occur. For instance, in Matthew 1:1-13, the
center is formed by verse 7, consisting of 27 syllables. Around the
center we find 47+40+45+27 syllables in verses 1, 2-3, 4-5 and 6; and
32+45+40+47 in verses 8, 9, 10, 11-12. This gives us a total of 350
syllables. Verse 13, the conclusion, consists of 20 syllables, giving us
a total of 370 syllables.
Another striking example has to do with the name of Peter. In one place,
John 1:42, Jesus calls him Kęphas, the psęphos of which amounts to 729.
In another place, Matthew 16:13, Peter is described as a stone, petra,
the psęphos of which is 486. Both figures refer to a foundation stone,
the surface area of which is 486, and the number of smaller cubes within
which is 729.
From these few examples one can conclude that the authors of the NT paid
great attention to the size of syllables, words and sentences. The
technical term for this phenomenon is gematria, from the Hebrew gymtry´ ,
which, again, is from the Greek geômetría (first attested in Herodotus).
The number of examples given above could easily be increased. They show
us something very significant, namely that the authors of the Gospels
were very much concerned with lines, with areas and with circles, in
short with gematria. It is obvious that their texts have been construed,
and that they have been construed with a very specific purpose, namely
that of arriving at one or more specific numbers that somehow point back
to various geometrical figures. It would, therefore, be wrong to read the
Gospels as if they were merely reporting certain historical events
without paying attention to the form of that report. The form of the
report is obviously of greater concern to them than its contents. One
could say, that the Gospels, at least to some extent, report geometrical
figures, rather than historical facts.
CLT
Dr. Countess (in his “Final Draft: 27 August 2003) refers to my thesis as
the CLT - the Christian Lindtner Theory, and I will adopt this convenient
abbreviation.
The CLT states, briefly, that the Gospels, perhaps even the NT as a
whole, is a Pirate-copy of the Buddhist Gospels, or of the Buddha´s
Testament. These terms will be defined in due course.
I have also spoken of translations, whereby I mean imitations. To be more
precise, I should speak of Pirate-copies in the sense of universal
imitations. When I speak of “universal” imitations, I mean to say that
the Gospels not only imitate the sense of the Sanskrit originals. The
Gospels also imitate the form and the numerical values found at various
levels in the original. When I speak of a Pirate-copy, I wish to suggest
that the authors of the Gospels (and the NT as a whole) also wanted to
keep their sources secret. The secret of the Christ, ho khristos, is the
secret of the ksatriyas. The kingdom of heaven was “received without
pay”, Matthew 10:8, “and men of violence take it by force”, Matthew
11:12. It is in this sense I speak of copies made by unknown pirates. The
authors of the NT wished to remain unknown, exactly as the authors of the
original Buddhist texts wished to remain unknow to posterity. It must always
be kept in mind that the authors wished to keep their true identity
secret.
The fact that we are, if I am not mistaken, speaking of secret
imitations, Pirate-copies, obviously does not make it easier for us to
identify the sources of the Gospels.
My friend, Dr. J. Duncan M. Derrett, who, incidentally, sends his cordial
greeting to the participants of this symposium, says, with Garbe: “ To
require close verbal similarity is too ask too much”.
By here my learned friend is simply too modest in his demands.
As you all are aware, there is a so-called synoptic problem. Matthew,
Mark and Luke have a lot in common. But there are some differences. The
synoptic problem has to do with the mutual relationship between the three
Gospels. It is discussed in any modern introduction to the NT. Augustine
held that Mark depended on Matthew, and Luke on Matthew and Mark. A
modern theory saying that Mark was the first evangelist, and that Matthew
and Luke depended not only on Mark but also on a source, now termed
Q(uelle), but no longer available, has found fairly general (but not
universal) acceptance. The hypothesis of Q, however, cannot account for
what Q actually looked like, who made it, its language, what ever became
of Q etc., and it fails to explain the origin of Mark.
The CLT has a simple answer to the Q problem. Q, understood as the source
not only of Matthew, Mark and Luke, but even of John and the other
writings of the NT, can, according to CLT, be defined in terms of the
Buddhist sources in Sanskrit. These texts are , fortunately, still
available to scholars.
Unfortunately, not all of them have been translated into modern
languages. The main Buddhist sources are Műlasarvâstivâdavinaya (MSV) and
the Saddharmapundarîka (SDP). The Sukhâvatîvyűha is the source of Luke
10:17. The first words of Jesus are from the Prajnâpâramitâ. There are a
few other Buddhist sources, and of course the numerous quotations from
the Old Testament, but the main sources are, without any shadow of doubt,
the MSV (parts of which, again, prove more important than others), and
the SDP. The SDP is available in modern translations.
It is in this general sense that the CLT claims that Q = MSV+SDP.
How do we prove the CLT?
The CLT can, of course, only be considered serious and scientific if it
can be verified. The thesis that Q = MSV+SDP must not only be supported
by reasons and examples. It must also be possible for scholars who take
the trouble to learn Sanskrit and Greek to verify it. There is a nice
Sanskrit term for this, namely ehi-pasyi-ka, or ehi-pasya-ka, said of the
Buddhist Dharmah. It is an adjective meaning “come (and) see (it for
yourself)”. Incidentally, John 1: 46 imitates the sense, the sound and
the size of this technical term, when he says: erkhou kai ide, “come
and see”.
So, the CLT is presented as an ehi-pasyika or as an erkhou kai ide
thesis. The thesis can be considered as a “theory”, but only in the
original Greek sense of that word.
How does one prove that something is a copy of something else? Surely,
one must have the original as well as the copy at hand. Scholars have
failed to identify Q simply because they did not consider reading MSV and
SDP in the original Sanskrit. It is as simple as that.
I started out by inviting the reader to start counting the words and syllables
in the Greek text of the NT, starting with Matthew. Fortunately, it is no
problem to get hold of a Greek text, preferably the most recent one of
Nestle-Aland. See www.ntgateway.com/greek.
The counting of letters can be done by computer analysis. There are some
interesting numerical patterns already here in Matthew 1:
1-2 : 45+ 91 = 136 letters
3-5: 91+82+91 = 400 letters
6-7: 76+73 = 149 letters
8-9: 75+74 = 149 letters
10-11: 77+73 = 150 letters
12-13: 88+81 = 169 letters
14-15: 71+79 = 150 letters
16+17 : 73+166 = 239 letters
18-19: 128+78 = 206 letters
20: = 156 letters
21-22 = 153 letters
23: = 107 letters
24-25: 92+64 = 156 letters
The right place to start counting, however, is probably not on the level
of letters, even though the repetitions of the figures 149, 150 and 156
etc. already in the first chapter of Matthew seem to suggest that the
author was having some sort of numerical pattern(s) in mind.
It must not be forgotten, when we count, that the division into verses
and chapters is, for all we know, a fairly modern one. Thus, the division
into chapters is believed to have been due to Stephen Langton, Archbishop
of Canterbury (1207-1228), whereas Robert Estienne (Stephanus) is
supposed to have devised the division into verses 1550 (see www.skypoint.com).
Counting by verses and syllables is the most convenient way of getting
hold of the numerical patterns. There are other divisions, quite
naturally so. New sections may be introduced by a kai - the most common
word in the Gospels, I think, or by “and then” or similar indications of
time and place etc. One is seldom in doubt as to where new sections begin
and end. Words spoken directly by e.g. Jesus form units in their own
right, as do those spoken by his disciples etc. As a rule, the verses, or
groups of verses also reflect certain units of sense. If a given unit has
a nice numerical value on the level of words as well as on the level of
syllables we can, I think, be sure that we are on the right track. Such
sections were also in the mind of the original editors. When the numbers
of words or syllables in a given unit correspond to the numerical value
of the main person(s) mentioned in that unit we are also, I think, on the
right track.
So, as said, I suggest that the reader makes a list of each chapter of
Matthew etc., indicating the number of words - and even syllables - in
each chapter. One should also be aware that the numerical patterns may
not be confined to one single chapter. Units may extend from one chapter
to another. It goes without saying that one here has to consult the
various editions of the Greek text, not just the eclectic modern one of
Nestle-Aland. Here and there there are certain textual problems. Some of
these can, in fact, be solved by counting words and syllables. Whether a
variant reading is to be adopted or not, can in some cases be decided on
a numerical basis.
Assuming that the reader has this table in front of him, I suggest that
there are certain code numbers, so to speak, the most important of which
is 108 and its divisors, viz. 27, 36, 54 etc. On the other hand we have
the round number 100, and its divisors, 50, 150, 180 etc.
I maintain, on the basis of numerous examples rooted in units of sense,
that the reader with the figure108-100 in mind has the code to the numerical
technique of all the writings in the NT in his hand. There is, in other
words, a double column that determines the numerical pattern of each
chapter. If we have a unit of 136 words or syllables, the editor was
thinking of 36, 1/3 of 108, and the round number 100.
The numbers we are searching for are:
27 (= 1/4 of 108)
36 (= 1/3 of 108)
54 (= 1/2 of 108)
63 (= 1/4+1/3 of 108)
72 (= 2/3 of 108)
81 (= 3/4 of 108)
90 (= 1/3 + 1/2 of 108)
99 (= 1/4 + 2/3 of 108)
------
108 undivided in itself
------
117 (= 3/4+1/3 of 108)
126 (= 1/2+2/3 of 108)
144 (= 4/3 of 108)
153 (= 2/3+3/4 of 108)
216 (= 2x108)
324 (= 3x108)
432 (= 4x108)
612 (= 4x153)
etc.
Moreover, we must look for 100, 120, etc., and for 111, 222, 666, 888
etc.
The total size of, say, a given chapter, cannot, of course be determined
simply by thinking of 108 and 100, and their divisors. Here, other
figures come into consideration. Thus, Matthew 12 consists of exactly 888
words - the numerical value of the name ´Ięsous. Matthew 18 consists of exactly
666 words - another highly significant figure, well-known from
Revelations 13:18, and from Q.
Incidentally, Revelations 13:18 is an important one also in another
respect. It posits a very close relationship between sophia, wisdom, and
numbers, or counting the numerical value of words and letters. Luke 7:35,
otherwise obscure, surely also has to be seen in this light. He says that
sophia is to be justified by its children, or, with a variant reading, by
its works. He means to says that wisdom consists in calculating the
numerical value correctly, or so I assume.
So, when I invite the reader to count, I am also appealing to his sophia.
If we do not count we shall not understand.
I am, to make myself quite clear, saying that if one has wisdom one must
start out by counting.
Assuming, moreover, that the reader agrees with me that 108-100 as well
as 666-888 are basic lucky numbers for the authors or editors of the NT,
the next question - also not seriously faced by scholars before now - has
to do with the historical background. Why was 108 considered, so to
speak, their lucky number?
To be sure, the figure 108 is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible,
neither in the OT nor in the NT.
Hence, the interest in the figure 108 must have another historical background.
That background, I claim is found in India, where 108, as known, is
widely considered as a holy number. The Buddhist rosary consists of 108
beads. Even the old name of the Christian rosarium is an imitation of the
Buddhist rosary. The Sanskrit japa-mâlâ, a garland for recitation, was
taken as a japâ-mâlâ, a garland of roses. The “original” reading is, of
course, japa, not japâ. The distortion is typical, and not without wit.
But here I am talking about the figure 108 in a purely literary context.
It is the “lucky number” of the evangelists.
A simple answer about the historical background of the figure 108 in the
NT is offered by the CLT which speaks of the Gospels as universal
imitations, Pirate-copies, of the Buddhist Gospels. The imitation, as
said, is universal in the sense that it works at many or even all levels.
It also imitates the numerical patterns of the Buddhist texts.
Incidentally, there is a Sanskrit term for “Pirate-copy”, and I readily
confess that I have imitated it. The Sanskrit is PRaTi-RűPaKa, often
found in Q, i.e. SDP. In Danish this becomes PiRaT-KoPieR - all the
original consonants , the number of syllables as well as the sense is
preserved. That is briefly how the imitations were made. The expression
“Pirate-copy” is itself an example of a Pirate-copy.
To establish my point with regard to the figure 108 etc. in Buddhist
originals, I can do no better than refer to what is universally regarded
as a basic Buddhist text. It is the famous sermon on the so-called Middle
Path.
The Sanskrit is found in the MSV, the most important part of Q. It was
edited by Waldschmidt in 1963 (p. 445), by Gnoli in 1977 (p. 134). Here
is the text (with my divisions, and in simplified Romanization):
I
tatra Bhagavân pancakân
bhiksűn âmantrayate sma:
dvâv imau bhiksavo ´ntau pravrajitena na sevitavyau na vaktavyau na
paryupâsatavyau; katamau dvau? yas ca kâmesu kâmasukhâlayânuyogo hîno
grâmyah prâkrtah pârthagjanikah;
yas câtmaklamathânuyogo duhkho ´nâryo ´narthopasamhitah; ity etâv ubhâv
antâv anupagamya - asti madhyamâ pratipac - caksuskaranî jnânakaranî
upasamasamvartanî abhijnâyaiva sambodhaye nirvânâya samvartate.
madhyamâ pratipat katamâ? âryâstângo mârgah.
II
tasya samyagdrstih
samyaksamkalpah samyagvâk samyakkarmântah samyagâjîvah samyagvyâyâmah
samyagsmrtih samyaksamâdhih.
asakad Bhagavân pancakân bhiksűn anaya samjnaptyâ samjnapayitum; dvav ca
Bhagavân pancakânâm bhiksűnâm pűrvabhakte avavadati; trayo grâmam pindaya
pravisati; yat trivargo ´bhinirharati tena sadvargo yâpayati; trims ca
Bhagavân pancakânâm bhiksűnâm pascâdbhakte avavadati; dvau grâmam pindâya
pravisatah; yad dvivargo ´bhinirharati tena pancavargo yâpayati;
tathâgatah pratiyaty eva kâlabhojî.
The texts requires a careful analysis on the level of words and on the
level of syllables. The following observations are not exhaustive but
sufficient to establish my point:
The text as a whole falls, first of all, into two clearly defined units.
The first (I) from tatra bhagavân ...to...âryâstângo mârgah. The second
(II) from tasya...to...kâlabhojî
Each half consists of exactly 54 words, giving us a total of 108 words.
The prose is, in several places, rather clumsy. Sanskrit scholars are
puzzled at to the lack of samdhi and other peculiarities. The editor was
obviously more concerned with form or shape than with contents. The first
half, again, can, from the point of view of sense, be divided into two
halves, each of which consists of exactly 27 words. It ends with
pârthagjanikah. The second half, on the other hand, consists of 9+45
words. From the point of view of sense, there is hardly any natural
connection between the two units. The 45 words seem to have been added to
the 9 words, that belong there, in order to attain 108, the lucky number
of the Buddhists.
As said, the 9 initial words of the second half naturally belong to the
first half, giving us a total, for this unit, of 54+9 = 63, and 63 =
1/4+1/3 of 108. The division, on the level of words, into two halves
serves to place the basic concept, the âryâstângo mârgah, the two final
words, in the focus.
When we then move to the level of syllables, there are also significant
numerical patterns, leaving us in no doubt that words as well as
syllables have been carefully counted.
In the first half (54 words, as said), there is a syllabic pattern
consisting of 44+44+20 syllables, i.e. 108 syllables, the lucky number.
The figure can naturally be divided into 100 + 8, where the 8 puts focus
on the basic technical term : as-ti madh-ya-mâ pra-ti-pad : “There is
a middle approach”. Then follows exactly 50 syllables. Thus the first
half of the unit consisting of 108 words consists of 108 + 50 syllables,
or 1/2 of 100.
This, as said, is the famous section on the Middle Way, the madhyamâ
pratipad.
In the MSV this section forms a part of a larger section, beginning on p.
133 (Gnoli), ending on p. 137.
There are five major units, and the total number of words in these five
units is exactly 888. The figure 888 is arrived at by adding the numer of
words found in each of the five sections (pp. 133-137), viz.:
268+108+325+50+137 = 888.
The “lucky numbers” in this rather typical passage are, therefore, 108
(36, 54, etc.) , 100 (= 2x50, etc.) and 888.
Another typical example is found in the section of the conversion of king
Suddhodana (Gnoli, p. 198).
It consists of 3 main units. The first unit consists of 27+33 = 60 words.
The 33 words form a unit that is repeated very often. The number of
syllables is here exactly 108. Many of the words given here are repeated
in the confession , Matthew 16:17-20. The second unit (from âha ca and
six verses) consists of 36 words, or 1/3 of 108.
The third unit (from atha râjâ ...to abhisiktah on the following page)
consists of exactly 144, or 108+36 words.
These patterns can be considered typical. 108, or its divisors, are
combined with 100, or its divisors. Such patterns are to be found in an
enormous number of cases in the MSV.
Another example is the story of the Kinnara and the Kinnarî (SBV, II, p.
41). Parts of it were copied in Matthew 8 and 15. (The unique Khananaia
in Matthew 15:22 is a copy of Sanskrit kinnarî, a fact, of course,
unknown to our NT dictionaries.)
Here the numerical pattern is: 36+36+25+27+9, i.e. 108 and 25 (1/4 of
100). Such numerical patterns are also typical of the gospels. The
typical original combination of prose and verse was, incidentally, also
copied by the gospel writers. The genre of the four gospels is in no way
unique, as generally held by NT scholars. It is a direct imitation, in
all respects, of Q.
The basic numerical patterns in the NT are, I claimed, exactly the same.
Since the Buddhist texts enjoy has the chronological priority - similar
patterns are present in Pâli texts brought to Ceylon 3rd century B.C. -
there can hardly be any doubt that the Christian texts are, as said,
Pirate-copies.
It should now, I think, be clear why counting words and syllables may
lead to such significant results. The numerical similarities, unknown
from other sources, show in an objective come-and-see way that the Greek
depends on the Sanskrit. The relationship is a direct one. Had there been
any sort of indirect relationship (e.g. “Aramaic”), the numerical patters
could hardly have survived intact.
Obviously each larger unit consists of bricks or chips consisting of an
even smaller number of words and syllables. This goes for the Greek as
well as for the Sanskrit text.
To some extent the Greek text can be divided into minor units, beginnning
with kai, tote etc. (The odd Greek apo tote, that has puzzled many
scholars, imitates the Sanskrit tato ´pi.)
I now claim that each of these units (apart, of course, from the OT
chips) is a direct imitation of the sense, of the sound, of both, or of
the numerical value of the original Sanskrit. The lenght of a given unit
in a Greek sentence can hardly be determined if one does not know the
original Sanskrit. Here I give only two examples:
The indication of time given in the first 8 words of Matthew 28:1. The
RSV translates: “ Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first
day of the week...”.
But the strange expression is actually fabricated by combining 3
different and independent Sanskrit phrases, not so combined in the
original . Each of them consists of 6 syllables, in the Sanskrit and in
the Greek. The unique tę epiphôskousę , “on the becoming light” is
especially revealing. The Sanskrit is the equally rare praty-űsa-samaye
(in the CPS 24g4 of the MSV). The logical agent is missing in the Greek ,
but present in the Sanskrit râtryâh. The Greek is thus a mutilation of an
unmutilated original.
Then there is the celebrated episode of the visit to Martha and Mary -
actually one and the same person. The pericope as a whole, Luke 10:
38-42, is purely fictitious. Each words and phrase can be traced back to
the MPS. To illustrate the technique:
atha-Âmra becomes hę de Mar-tha, 10:40. The “water-jewel”, San.
u-da-ka-ma-ni becomes di-a-ko-ni-an. The Martha Martha was originally an
Âmra, Âmra. The tęn agathęn merida , “good part” was originally San.
Tathâgatam and dharma, or Tathâgata-dharmam. In the original it is also
said that one dharma is sufficient. Luke says that one is necessary - but
fails to say which one is needed, or necessary. Leaving part of the full
meaning out is an extremely common device deliberately used to mystify,
and attract the attention of the readership.
These few examples suggest that the Greek is highly misleading taken at
its face value. You must know Sanskrit to understand the Greek properly.
Otherwise you are totally lost.
There is without any doubt a “hidden sense” in the Greek text. One has to
count the letters, the syllables and the words to discover the hidden
sense.
Conclusion
Buddhists have a long tradition for counting the number of words and
syllables in their gospels. They also have a deep experience in
translating Indian texts into foreign languages. It goes back to the time
of king Asoka.108 is the lucky number. Even the Rgveda is said to
consists of 10800 x 40 syllables. Many texts have titles indicating the
number of syllables that it consists of. Masters of counting are often
extolled in the Buddhist texts. They are said to be masters of gananâ or
ganite.
There is still a long way ahead of us, but we can already now see the
light at the end of the tunnel.
It is a fact that the Buddhist and Christian evangelists counted the
words and syllables and that they were aware of the numerical values of
each letter. My book gives some examples and each day new examples are
brought to light.
How they managed to construe careful numerical patterns on several levels
at the same time is still a puzzle to me. Did they employ some sort of
mechanical device - or did they possess some extraordinary powers of
memorizing?
The example with Kęphas and petra shows that sometimes the evangelists
were thinking in geometrical patterns.
It is therefore natural to search for geometrical patterns behind, on the
one hand 108 and 100 etc., and on the other, behind 888 and 666. If we
are a bit familiar with more occult Western traditions the numbers
mentioned above point in the direction of various geometrical figures,
above all the pentagon and pentagram and the so-called magic square,
inscribed in circles.
For details I refer to the drawings of the Pentagram and the Magic
Square.
Some interesting 108 cases in the New Testament
1. Mark 1 begins his gospel about ´Ięsou Khristou, Sanskrit ksatriyasya,
with an OT quotation. OT is also a part of the real Q, of course. - Then
follows a unit of 108 words in 4-9. This is followed by 6 other units of
108 words, viz. 18-24, 21-27, 23-29, 31-38, 32-39 and 33-40. Moreover,
the first four verses along with the two final verses, 44-45, add up to
108 words.
The beginning-end pattern, the alpha-omega pattern, is repeated in Mark
13, where the first 3 verses and the last 4 verses add up to 108 words.
2. Mark 5 displays another pattern with 108 in the focus. Verses 1-20
consist of 324, or 3x108 words. Verses 24-37 consist of 216, or 2x108
words. The “missing” verses, namely 21-23 and 38-43 add up to 158, or
108+50, or 1/2 of 100.
Verses 25-31, a unit about the woman who had had a flow of blood for
twelve years, also consists of 108 words. All the stories, including the
figures, can be traced back to the MSV.
3. Mark 14 has four cases of 108, viz. 28-34, 36-41, 40-45 and 53-59. All
words can be traced back to MSV.
4. Paul´s Romans 16:20b-27 consists of two units, 20b-24, and 25-27, each
of which consists of 54 words, giving a total of 108 words. To this is
added a final amęn, the numerical value of which is 99, or 11/12 of 108.
Stylistically, the final amęn obviously reflects the use of a final
Sanskrit iti.
The first half shows a nice concentric pattern on the syllabic level
also: 46+23+46 syllables for verses 20b-24, or 5x23 syllables.
The second half, 25-27, consists (without the amęn) of exactly 116
syllables, i.e. 115+1, or 4x29 syllables.
The total number of syllables thus adds up to 115+116+2, or 233.
Now, 233 is exactly 1/4 of 932, which is the numerical value of
Sâkya-munis, and to haima mou, “the blood of mine”, Matthew 26:28.
Paulos, whose name, incidentally, has the same numerical value as sophia,
namely 80+1+400+30+70+200 = 781, cannot possibly been unaware of the
psęphos of to haima mou, or Sâkya-munis.
5. John 2:1-25 provides us with 4x108 words. Verses 1-7 consist of 108
words, and 8-12 also consist of 108 words. Verses 13-20 consist of 135
words, and 18-25 also consist of 135 words. It both cases John must have
108+27 in mind. Verse 9 consists of 27 words, 1/4 of 108, and 23-24 consist
of 36 words, or 1/3 of 108.
6. John 15 shows another 108 pattern. Verses 1-4 (= 72 words) and 12-14
(= 36 words) add up to 108 words, just as 4-5 ( = 54 words) and 9-11 (=
54 words) also add up to 108. In other words: When he counts 36, 54, 72
etc., he does so with the figure 108 in the back of his mind.
7. John 19 ends in a unit, about the odd Joseph of Arimathea, verses
38-42, a unit of 108 words.
In the printed editions of the NT, John 19:16 is broken into two: 7 words
belong to the previous section. Then we have 4 words belonging to a new
section. This section, 19:16b-22, forms a new unit consisting of 108
words. This example shows how the 108 principle follows the sense, not
the verse divisions. This, again, shows that the figure 108 is “authentic”.
Q is here MSV.
8. Matthew 1:1-14 consists of 216, or 2x108 words. The figure 216 is
arrived at by adding the 99 (= 27+2x36) words of 16 to the 117 (=
3x27+36) words of 7-14. Moreover, verses 1-9 consist of 144 words. Verses
8-12 consist of 72 words, and 10-14 also consist of 72 words. Verses 3-4
and 4-5 consist of 36 words, and 2-4 of 54 words. The pattern of building
up on the basis of 27 and 36 words goes on almost ad infinitum in Matthew
and the other gospels.
9. The number of letters in Matthew 2: 8-13 amounts to 720. The number of
letters in the verses that follow, 14-16, is 360. This gives us a sum of
3x360 = 1080, which is 30x36, or 10x108. The first verse consists of 111
letters. The chapter as a whole displays several interesting patterns
already at the level of letters.
10. Matthew 11:1 looks odd in the modern editions. It seems to belong to
Matthew 10. But actually verses 1-14 consist of exactly 216, or 2x108
words, as in Matthew 1:1-14. Here, again, the division into verses can be
misleading. The break occurs after the 3 initial words of verse 8, an
independent question. Thus, 1-8a and 8b-14 gives us 108+108 = 216 words.
11. Matthew 12:22-32 is the episode about Beelzeboul. It, again, consists
of 216, or 2x108 words. The source, Q, is the SDP.
The number of words in verses 1-9 is 144, or 4x36, or 108+36.
The total number of words is 888, the numerical value of the name of
´Ięsous.
Verses 35 and 40 contain several puns on Q, which is here SDP. I can come
back to the puns, only recalling here that the numerical value of
pundarîka is, in fact = 80+400+50+4+1+100+10+20+1 = 666 - the total
number of words in Matthew 18, and also the number assigned to man in
Revelations 13.18, where the full phrase a-rith-mos gar an-thrô-pou
es-tin beautifully renders sad-dhar-ma-pun-da-rî-ka-sű-tram. All the 9
syllables have been retained. The Greek has 10 vowels, 13 consonants. The
Sanskrit has 9 vowels, 14 consonants. Each text has 23 letters. As an r
may be taken as a semivowel, both texts have the same number of vowels
and consonants. The consonants are the same in both languages.
12. Matthew 17:1-27 displays another 108 pattern. 108 words occur in 2-7,
10-16 and 19-24, respectively. There is a gap of 2 verses. The “missing”
verses, 1+8-9+17-18+28-29 add up to 181, or 100+3x27.
13. Matthew 21. Verses 12-16 is a unit consisting of 108 words. Verse 17
consists of 12 words.
Then follows a unit, verses 18-22, consisting of 54+44 = 98 words.
The corresponding number of syllables is 200. The number of syllables
spoken by Jesus himself is 50.
The source is MSV, and there are some wonderful puns on Sâkya-munim :
sukęn mian, monon.
There is thus an intersection of 108 and 100 on the level of syllables
and words.
14. Matthew 24:32-33 is also about the sukę from the same source, MSV.
Here is also an intersection of words and syllables. There are 36 words,
75 syllables, giving us a total of 111 units, or 1/6 of 666.
It has never been realized that the subject in verse 33 is the apparently
adverbial epi thurais, Sanskrit udumbaras - the fig. There are, to be
sure, other cases of such “substantivized prepositional phrases”, e.g. ek
pneumatos (estin) hagiou, Matthew 1:18&20. They are, of course, bound
to escape those ignorant of the Sanskrit original. The pun is on SDP.
15. Matthew 25: 1-13 consists of 168 words, or 370 syllables. Verses
14-30 consists of 292 words, or 612 syllables. The figure 612 is the
numerical value of Zeus and also of Buthas. It is exactly 1/2 of the
extremely significant figure 1224. The final verses, 38-46, consist of
153 words, or 1/4 of 612.
16. Luke 3: 2-9 consists of 153 words, arrived at by adding 2-6 = 81+
7-9= 72. It contains 3-4 = 36 words, and 8-9 = 54 words. Round numbers
are provided by 2-8 = 130, 4-8 = 100, and 6-9 = 80.
Then follows a unit, verses 10-16 = 126 words. It contains verses 10-11 =
27 words, and 13-15 = 54 words.
Verses 1-21 add up to 370 words, 18-38 to 250 words.
Units of 100 words are provided by 4-8, 14-17, 16-20, 18-22, 29-38.
17. Luke 17 starts by giving 108 words in 1-6 as well as 6-11. The final
verses, 30-37, also add up to 108 words. Verses 30-38 contain 90 words
etc.
18. Luke 20 consists of exactly 700 words - the numerical value of Munis.
All the evangelists were familiar with Munis, short for Sâkya-munis,
having the numerical value of 932, the to haima mou.
Chapter 6 consists of 931 words, at least in the practical edition of
Gebhardt-Tischendorf, Lipsiae 1912. Other editors give different numbers.
The original may have had exactly 932 words. It goes without saying that
the apparatus criticus always has to be consulted before reaching any
final numerical conclusion.
Numbers and names - which came first?
This is an highly relevant and extremely important question. If the
numbers came first and the names were construed or chosen only for their
numerical value - what, then, becomes of the historicity of the persons
having that name assigned to them? If, alternatively, the names came
first, how, then, can we account for the fact that so many names “just
happen” to have a highly significant numerical value?
It seems unlikely that ´Ięsous just happens to be 888, or that Kęphas and
petra “just happen” to be 729 and 486 - two figures representing a cube.
It seems unlikely that Paulos and sophia “just happen” to be 781. We have
seen that sophia is closely associated with counting, and we have seen
examples that “Paulos” was extremely good at counting. Paulos and Sophia
are intimately associated, just as Prajnâ and Upâyas form a pair. Is
Paulos, in fact, not simply Upâyas in fairly obvious disguise? There is,
in fact no independent evidence to spport that either Jesus or Paul were
historical persons. We only have the word of the NT for it, and that is
not enough.
It seems unlikely, does it not, that Munis, Tathâgatas and Sâkyamunis,
always in the nominative form, “just happen” to be 700, 816 (2/3 of 1224)
and 932, respectively.
And does it not seem unlikely that axôn, omphalos and Sanskrit
Sűrias/Sűryas “just happen” to be 911 - just as its seems unlikely that
certain significant events “just happen” to take place 9/11 - even today.
In his remarkable book Jesus Christ: Sun of God, from 1993, David Fideler
(p. 72-73) points to some striking examples suggesting that the canon of
Greek gematria, going back to the time before Plato, presupposes that the
names of the major divinities and mythological figures were consciously
codified in relation to the natural ratio of geometry to equal specific
numerical values.
If this is true, and I think it is, this means that the numbers came before
the gods and the mythological figures, in other words that the gods etc.,
or at least their names, were simply made up, or fabricated. Examples are
provided by the solar divinity Abraxas that in Greek has the numerical
value of 365, the number of days in a solar year. Mithras, in the most
common spelling, equals 360, the value of a year in some places, but
several old writers purposefully add an extra “e” to make the name total
365, a more precise reckoning of the solar years. Likewise, says Fideler,
the name of every single ones of the Hebrew planetary spirits and
intelligences was consciously formulated, by someone, to bring out the
precise number from the appropriate “magic square”.
The most striking example is that of Zeus, having the number 612 - just
like Buthas, I may add. The value of Hermes is 353, and that of Apollo is
1061. It was the British writer William Sterling who in 1897 pointed out
that the numerical values of these three “numerical gods” relate
precisely to one another through the ratio of the square root of 3, i.e.
an irrational number, approximately 1.7320508... See Figure 15 in
Fideler´s book, p. 71.
I find Sterling´s discovery to be extremely important. It more than
suggests that the names of the principal gods were simply made up to
achieve certain numbers relating to certain geometrical figures. And
what, indeed, remains of the gods if stripped of their names? Nothing -
or rather, nothing apart from geometrical figures.
Fideler (op. cit., p. 75) rightly observes that Sterling´s modern
discovery, or rediscovery, confirms Plato´s celebrated statement that “
geometrical equality prevails widely among both gods and men.”
To repeat: The names of major divinities are pure fabrications made up so
that their numerical values equal natural ratios of geometry. The
observation not only applies to the Greek canon of gematria. It is also
found in Hebrew names. I think that my numerical analysis has suggested
that the rule about numbers before names, to put it simply, also applies
to words and names in the NT. 888 came before ´Jęsous, and 729 and 486
came before Kęphas and petra etc. Words, names and sentences etc. were
made up in order to achieve certain numbers pointing to natural ratios of
geometry.
The NT figures of 666 and 888 point towards the circle symbolizing the
sun.
The other figures, 27, 36, 54, 72, 108 etc., pointed out above,
definitely reflect the angles in a pentagram. The pentagon and the
pentagram can well be inscribed in their own solar circle. This explains
why the evangelists combine 108 with 360, 180, 90 etc. Exactly the same
observation applies to some of the canonical Buddhist texts in Sanskrit.
Q, i.e, MSV and SDP, shows unmistakeable influence from Greek astronomy
and science. Buddhist art in Gandhâra etc. leaves no doubt about
influence from Greek art. Greek artists knew all about the canon of Greek
gematria. The Parthenon, Athena´s temple, designed by Ictinus and
Callicrates about 447 B.C. encapsulates the central values of Greek
gematria: 353 for Hermes, 318 for Helios, 1061 for Apollo, 612 for Zeus
etc. (see the figure in Fideler, p. 219). You can still marvel at the
beauty of the Parthenon, if not among the ruins in Athens itself then in
Nashville , Tennessee, where Pallas still shines in all her pristine
majesty from a modern replica.
The pentagram is generally considered a Pythagorean symbol, once secret,
no longer so.
The pentagram is the basic geometrical figure of the New Testament,
possibly also of at least some of the Buddhist canonical texts. The
figures 36, 54, 108, combined with 100 etc., certainly point in that
direction, i.e. in the direction of a Pythagorean background.
Gematria, therefore, provides the key to New Testament studies.
Therefore one must start by counting.
I promised to say a few words about the title “The New Testament” itself.
Again, one must start by counting.
The Greek is, of course, hę kainę diathękę.
This is a translation of the Sanskrit Tathâgatasya kâyam, from Q, more
precisely MPS 42: 10, a part of MSV.
Luke 22: 20, and Paul I Kor 2: 25 prefer the rendering hę kainę diathękę,
7 syllables. Here Sanskrit kâyam, “body” becomes Greek kainę (k-a-y-m =
k-a-i-n), and di-a-thę-kę imitates ta-thâ-ga-ta-, but one dental is
missing. The hę is there so that all the 7 syllables of the original are
preserved. The genitive of the original is also lost in Luke and Paul.
Matthew, 26: 28, on the other hand, manages to preserve the original
genitive with his tęs di-a-thę-kęs. i.e. ta-thâ-ga-tas-ya, 5 syllables.
He adds an extra s, however, and the syntax is obscure. The kâyam in
Matthew becomes sôma, in 26:26, and haima in 26:28. (For Jews blood is a
synonym of the body, as known.) At the same time, to haima mou in Matthew
also has the numerical value of Sanskrit Sâkyamunis, viz. 932. There is
an overlapping, as often. Our authors constantly work at different levels
at the same time. The tou-to-gar-es-tin imitates Sanskrit
ta-thâ-â-ga-tam, “For this is a fact:” Here is yet another trap for Greek
scholars ignorant of the Sanskrit original, as in Matthew 28:1 etc. etc.
Trinity - sit venia verbo - appears as unity.
And the psęphos of kâyam (=72) and Tathâgatas (= 912) is, of course, 888,
the psęphos of ´Ięsous.
The New Testament, therefore, is The Body of Tathâgata. The Body of
Tathâgata is, at the same time, the same as Jesus, and the same as
Sâkyamunis.
The lucky number is 108, the Buddhist number. Hardly surprising, there
are 4 gospels, and 27 books in the Body of Tathâgata. Needless to add:
4x27 = 108.
Chr. Lindtner, 9-11, 2003
|
