A NEW INTRODUCTION TO THE BODY OF TATHÂGATAS alias THE NEW TESTAMENT
By Dr. Christian Lindtner
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.
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)
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):
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.
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 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.
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.
Dr. Christian Lindtner, Klavreström 9-11, 2003.