the twelve tribes : the greek version
The discrepancies as to the twelve tribes of Israel in the Book of Revelation raise questions about possible text manipulation, and, if this be the case, about the reasons. What the visionary John, the apostle, saw and heard, what he dictated to his writing assistant, if Greek or Aramaic was the actual language, if later copiers – theologians, monks, scribes – made changes, deliberately or because of lost or damaged fragments, and if logometric aspects have played a part in what happened underway, etc … nothing of this we know. We only realize that things are not correct. The amount of critical details automatically create a certain distrust to many a detail in the entire New Testament.
Referring to the Hebrew Genesis and Exodus texts – cfr. p. 204 – I see good reason to mention the twelve tribes, a crowd of 144 000 in total, each tribe represented by 12 000 individuals, as listed in the seventh chapter of the Book of Revelation. The names are as follows:
English (Hebrew form / HE) Greek C-values D-values (h1-scale figures)
Judah (Yehuda) Ιουδα 485 432
Reuben (Reuven) Ρουβην 630 549
Gad (Gad) Γαδ 8 0
Asher (Asher) Ασηρ 309 261
Naphtali (Naftali) Νεφθαλιμ 645 558
Manasseh (Menasheh) Μανασση 500 423
Simeon (Shim’on) Συμεων 1495 1395
Levi (Levi) Λευι 445 396
Issachar (Yissakhar) Ισσαχαρ 1112 1017
Zebulun (Zevulun) Ζαβουλων 1360 1260
Joseph (Yosef) Ιωσηφ 1518 1431
Benjamin (Benyamin) Βενιαμιν 168 99
sums 8675 7821
None of these total sums attract interest. They needn’t, of course; there is no general law saying they should. The built-in scars should be checked, however:
(1) Dan is missing. Joseph’s son Manasseh is given Dan’s place. Why? Adding Dan, the number of tribes would be thirteen. So, what else is wrong here?
(2) During the Exodus the tribe of Joseph was divided; the descendants of his sons Ephraim and Manasseh were declared separate tribes because Levi was chosen to do temple service, and back in Kanaan they got no land of their own, like the others. Thus, in the apocalyptic frame of Revelation, Manasseh has only a right to be present in union with Ephraim and under the name of Joseph. And Dan should be included.
Thus, omitting Manasseh C-500 / D-423 and including Dan C-55 / D-27, we get the corrected sums of C-8230 / D-7425. The C-sum seems still expressionless, but D-7425, being 3x3x3 x 5x5 x 11, exposes some dignity.
(3) Naphtali has been equipped with an extra ‘m’, however, and the reason is in no way obvious. Dropping the ‘m’ we get new total sums: C-8190 / D-7398. Despite the fact that both sums are divisible by 9, not much else has been achieved. Searching for an expressive (or even, a self-explaining) sum number, we experience dead ends.
The misspelt ‘Zaboulon’ makes no great difference. And the fact that Asher is called ‘Aser’ is due to the fact that the sound ‘sh’ is absent in Greek, a fact explaining why Yeshúa most likely should have been named ‘Iesoua’. The ending ‘-ous’ in Greek ‘Yesous’ is thus a problem of its own – not at all referring to the Greek ending of ‘-os’ in nouns, like in Petros; Parnassos, etc.).
There is thus good reason to guess that the form ‘Iesous’, having the (gematric) value D-888, is a deliberately created ‘idealism’ to give Him a logometric signature of honour. The referring and copying theologians have left their own signature by so doing, thus nourishing aftertime’s distrust.
It is therefore of interest to note that the difference between our concluding C- and D-sums (8190 and 7398) is 792 – the very D-value of the consciously chosen Greek form, Iesous.