Not having read the original Greek, I don’t know for sure how the number 666 was represented in the original text, but I suspect that it refers to the value of six hundred and sixty-six, not the sequence of three consecutive 6’s as it is represented in the decimal system. Indeed, the decimal system did not exist at the time Revelation was written. If six hundred and sixty-six was written numerically, it would have been written as DCLXVI (or its equivalent in the Greek alphabet). Therefore, any interpretation that relies on a sequence of three 6’s is flat-out wrong. Likewise, I doubt that any interpretation that puts any significance on the number six is at all accurate, since the number six only becomes prevalent when the value is written in decimal notation.
It’s true that nobody in the ancient Greek world used decimal place-value notation, so they never wrote “666” with three identical symbols for “6”. (The Greek alphanumerical representation of “six hundred sixty-six”, which is how the number is verbally expressed in the Greek text of Revelation, would have been the Greek letters chi (600), xi (60), and the obsolete letter digamma (6).)
However, it does seem reasonable to suggest that “six”, “sixty”, and “six hundred” are all related by the concept of “sixness”, so in some sense they do represent “three sixes” even when they’re not written in place value notation.
The Staff Report will appear officially on Tuesday, April 4. I’ve added a link to the OP, although there may be minor editing between now and then.
The Staff Report does say, clearly, that the number is six-hundred sixty six, not three sixes. A reader in ancient times familiar with the symoblism of the number six would have no problem recognizing that “six hundred” was a multiple, as was sixty, etc. Analogy: It would be kind of like if you were reading a Steven King novel and the toy company produced 1,313 dolls, that would be a kind of bad-luck clue even though it’s not read as 13-13.
Yes, I suppose you’re right. However, I still have a couple of counter-arguments against the number six:
If the hypothetical Steven King novel read “one thousand three hundred thirteen dolls” instead of “1,313 dolls”, the significance of the numbers would be largely missed. Indeed, one might doubt if the author was even considering the significance of the number 13 when he picked the number. That is, he may very well have had a different motive in mind when he picked the number.
Again, I’m not a bible scholar, but If the author intended the emphasize the number 6, wouldn’t the literary custom at the time have been to say something like “six times sixty” or “six times six and six”, rather than “six hundred sixty-six”?
My point with my argument is that absent the decimal notation, I would think that an interpretation should err more towards gematria, where the end number just happens to sum to 666 (or 616), rather than towards an interpretation that puts heavy emphasis on the number 6.
I think we’re saying the same thing, hobb. One would be hard-pressed to argue, for instance, that the appearance of six ravens, six rabbits, and six horses was a sign that satan was approaching. That would be three 6’s, and that’s different from six-hundred-and-sixty-and-six. Thus, the Staff Report is heavily focused on gematria.
However, note that the bible does use multiples to convey symbolic meaning. Thus, 40 is a “magic number” symbolizing generational change (40 days and 40 nights of the flood, for instance, was a generational change.) The enslavement in Egypt is 400 years, which is clearly 40 (generational change) x 10 (completeness.) Similarly, the number of people going to Egypt with Joseph numbers 70 = 7 (fulfilment) x 10 (completeness). So, I think it is not unreasonable that the conflux of 6 x 100 plus 6 x 10 plus 6 is meant to resound with 6’s.
Re: the “numbers” muuuhahahahahahahahahahahahaha! That’s funny work, you two!
A few more pieces of information (IIRC) that are the final nails in the coffin for Nero being the Beast include:
Just as 666 is Neron Caeser in Hebrew, Nero Caeser is 616.
“A human number” may be translated to “a number of a man.”
One should also point out that Nero was so hated that, after his death, there was an “urban legend” that he would come back to life to continue his persecutions. (Three pretenders tried to claim they were Nero reborn.)
[ nitpick ] Caesar is written in Greek as Kaisaros.
Neron was the form used in Aramaic (and, perhaps, Greek).
[ /nitpick ]
As to the “616” issue: The version containing the chi iota sigma (looks like [symbol]CIS[/symbol] ) is supported by only one major manuscript, C (Gregory 04), the Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus. That parchment majuscule dates from the late fifth century, was scraped clean in the 12th century to be written over by a treatise by the Syrian Church leader Ephraem, then examined to recover the original text by Tischendorf in the 19th century.
Irenaeus had discovered a copy of Revelation as early as the mid 2d century that said 616/[symbol]CIS[/symbol] and claimed it was an error.
The more typical display is of [symbol]CX[/symbol]F.
Speaking of decimals, one of Tubadiva’s contributions is “6.66 e3 = Floating point Beast”. This translates to 6,660. 6.66 e2 (i.e. 6.66 x 10[sup]2[/sup]) is 666.
Unless, of course, the floating-point beast is ten times as unholy.
…ok… Now you’ll have to explain to me what all those word-thingies mean…
I thought that 616 (the number of the alternate beast?) was Nero. Are you saying that it isn’t? Or just that it’s not the “official” version. Or 616 should never have existed as a number of the beast?
The Greek (transliterated) would read “hexakosioi hexekonta hex.” It is written out in the text; numerical abbreviations weren’t used as much as we’re used to. I think the “sixness” would stand out.
Regarding 616: that reads “hexakosiai deka hex.” As tomndebb note, that reading is only supported by one major manuscript. To address JustAnotherGeek’s question, most scholars think “hexakosiai deka hex” is not what was in the original manuscript. Perhaps the copyist who wrote Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus made an error? Such things happen. Perhaps somebody wanted to “update” the number so that it would refer to their favorite enemy? Such things happen too.
As far as I can see, the only real reason to look twice at “616” is the text-critical principle that if you’ve got two variants, and one of them is hard to explain while the other is easier to explain, there’s a chance the harder reading is correct. In this case, “hexakosioi hexekonta hex” has such a nice ring to it that it’s hard to see why someone would accidentally substitute “deka”; while cleaning up the “deka” to make a better phrase is a fix you can imagine someone making. But since there’s only one major manuscript with “616,” and lots of very good manuscripts with the other reading, I think the most reasonable conclusion is (in JustAnotherGeek’s words) “616 should never have existed as a number of the beast”. Looks like a typo to me.
That’s funny work, you two!