# DECIPHERING “THE LOST GOSPEL” WITH SOWER’S 100-60-30

In The Lost Gospel by Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson, they say “We have not cracked their code” (footnote 193).  I have to keep pinching myself because I have cracked it.  The solution is to use the numbers in the Sower’s Parables (100-60-30) to produce factors of 70 x 7.

Finding these factors of 70 x7, identical to at least nine passages in the Bible, argues for an earlier date for The Lost Gospel (entitled “Of Aseneth”), alongside Revelation and in or near the group who wrote the New Testament.

Solution:

page 315

1st year, 5th day, 2nd month, 4th month, 1st year.

Sum 1 = 13

page 319

1st year, 18th day, 4th month.

Sum 2 = 23

page 364

21st day, 2nd month, 2nd year.

Sum 3 = 25

This puzzle is atypical in that the three number sets do not all contain the same number of values.

Take Sower’s Parables numbers (100-60-30) and multiply:

100 x 13 = 1,300

60 x 23 = 1,380

30 x 25 = 750

Sum of products = 3,430

Factors are:  70 x 7 x 7 (or seven-cubed x 10)

This is my tenth example of 70 x 7.

Now with this tenth instance of my discovering a “seventy times seven” with Sower’s Parables numbers (see links below), I have to ask, what are the odds against gaining ten instances of “seventy times seven”? We can readily see that the odds of a factor of 7 x 7 are 1 in 49. The probability against ten instances of this is 1 in 49 to the tenth power, or 1 in 79,792,266,297,612,001. That is approximately 1 in 79 quadrillion.

Seven is a favored number in the Bible and also in “Of Aseneth.” There it accounts for a large portion of the numbers.

“70 x 7” is found in Matthew 18:22 (footnote NRSV) and also in Genesis 4:24.  By the way, I believe that means seventy times sevenfold (DRA), not 77 times.

The Sower’s Parables numbers can be found at: (1)  Matthew 13:8 (100, 60, 30); (2)  Matthew 13:23 (100, 60, 30); (3)  Mark 4:8 (30, 60, 100); (4)  Mark 4:20 (30, 60, 100); and (5)  Luke 8:8 (100).

Posted December 17, 2014

Sower’s sevens math calculations are at:

https://vinesandbrambles.wordpress.com/sevens-from-sowers-parables-numbers/

The eighth and ninth examples of Sower’s “70 x 7” are at the end of this next post:

https://vinesandbrambles.wordpress.com/sevens-from-sowers-parables-numbers/revelations-tribes-yield-sowers-sevens/

Updated: January 19, 2015

SECOND ASENETH SOLUTION

Well, such excitement! I’ve cracked Aseneth again! Yay, yay, yaY !!!

I went looking online for another translation of Aseneth, a translation of the Greek, to help me in deciphering the numbers, and I found a translation by David Cook at Mark Goodacre’s site. I was dismayed to find that in this other manuscript of Aseneth, many of the numbers were different from the Syriac discussed above. So where to start? I started my research with the three passages with dates. But in the Greek version, some numbers were different. Nevertheless, I discovered that the same Sower’s sevens numerical fingerprint is present. That is, a biblical “seventy times seven” is embedded in the text and can be revealed by application of Sower’s parables numbers (30, 60, 100), but only if text variants in footnotes are taken into account.

I was relieved to find that this time, the number sets for the dates each had an equal number of values as I would expect from my experience with Sower’s sevens. However, the solution was complicated by different text variants, and so I went through all possible variant combinations to find the solution.

Here are the values in the three dates, and the resultant sums:

First date:

I. It came to pass in the first year of the seven years of plenty, in the second month, that Pharaoh sent out Joseph to go round the whole land of Egypt. 2. And Joseph came, [1] in the fourth month of the first year, on the eighteenth day of the month, [2] into the district of Heliopolis.” The footnote tells me that the fourth month being omitted is a variant. I omit it.

1st year, 2nd month, 18th day

Sum = 21

Second date:

III. And it came to pass [1] in the fourth month, on the eighteenth [2] day of the month, that Joseph came into the district of Heliopolis. [3]” A footnote tells me that a variant adds “in the first year of the seven years of plenty.” Also, a footnote tells me that a variant to “eighteenth” is “twenty-eighth.” I keep “eighteenth.” I added “first year.”

1st year, 4th month, 18th day

Sum = 23

Third date:

XXII. And after this the seven years of plenty came to an end, and the seven years of famine began. 2. And when Jacob heard about his son [1] Joseph, he came into Egypt with his family, in the second month, on the twenty-first day of the month; and he settled in the land of Goshen. [2]” Here I make the assumption that if the seven years of famine are just beginning, then we are in the first year of that period, rather than the seventh year of plenty just ended.

1st year, 2nd month, 21st day

Sum = 24

Then I take Sower’s Parables numbers (30, 60, 100) and multiply:

30 x 21 = 630

60 x 23 = 1,380

100 x 24 = 2,400

Sum of products = 4,410

Factors are:  70 x 7 x 9

This is my 11th example of 70 x 7.

Now with this 11th instance of my discovering a “seventy times seven” with Sower’s Parables numbers (see links above), I have to ask, what are the odds against gaining eleven instances of “seventy times seven”? We can readily see that the odds of a factor of 7 x 7 are 1 in 49. The probability against eleven instances of 49 is 1 in 49 to the 11th power, or 1 in 3,909,821,048,582,988,049. That is approximately 1 in 3.9 quintillion (term from Webster’s dictionary). The odds against an 11th instance of 490 are 1 in 490 to the 11th power, or 1 in 390,982,104,858,298,804,900,000,000,000. That is approximately 1 in 391 octillions.

Given those astronomical odds, it seems pretty obvious to me that Sower’s sevens were being embedded intentionally.

Sower’s sevens can be used in critical analysis: A manuscript with an intact Sower’s sevens numerical fingerprint could be judged older or at least better quality than a manuscript with corrupted numbers. Thus, the Syriac manuscript (translated by Tony Burke) may be older or better quality because it has a complete fingerprint, whereas this particular Greek translation does not have a complete fingerprint (as far as I can tell right now) unless I consider variants. Whether both variants I used came from the same manuscript is not clear to me from the footnotes (“Slav, BH Slav”?).

Perhaps the two fingerprints (the Greek found partially in variants), came originally from the same shop or even the same hand? Let’s consider the possibility that the author didn’t just issue her?? Aseneth only once but perhaps many times over many years as its popularity grew. “Of Aseneth” is told mainly from the perspective of a young woman who has the “fingers of a skilled and esteemed scribe” (20:3, Syriac version). Could the author be writing about her younger self??

Perhaps the evolution of manuscripts via edits, could be traced historically by examining the divergence from an original Sower fingerprint with 70 x 7. Could this be like a trademark?

Are there computer programmers out there capable of devising programs to comb the texts of the various ancient manuscripts for uncorrupted Sower fingerprints and thereby categorize those texts according to their antiquity or pristine condition (assuming the presence of intact Sower fingerprints correlates well with faithful copying)?

Having a computer do the calculations would be more efficient than having me do it.

.