(14 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...I have received a number of queries about my post concerning the recently discovered papyrus P115 which indicates that the number of the Beast (the Antichrist) in Revelation 13 was 616 rather than 666. Some of them I addressed in my post of yesterday. But some readers have inquired about something slightly different: how do discoveries like this affect our translations of the New Testament? Here is one of those questions and my respons.
QUESTION:
I thought the NIV Bible kept up-to-date with newer papyrus discoveries. Yet, it too shows 666 (and not 616) for REV 13:18. Why might that be?
RESPONSE:
Ah, good question. When I indicated that the reading 616 is now found in an early manuscript, I did not mean to say that therefore it is more likely to be the reading that the author originally wrote. That is a different question.
As is true for a lot of verses in the New Testament, different manuscripts have different wordings for this verse. There are five different forms of the text known for the number of the Beast. Three of them …
The rest of this post is for members only. If you’re not a member, you’re dwelling in the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Come inside, into the light! It won’t cost much, and every penny goes to charity.
Would I be correct in believing the actual dating of P47 and P115 is DISPUTED between Biblical scholars. Therefore, today it is impossible to know whether REV 13:18 was originally “666” or “616”? Both are 50/50 equal possibilities?
You’re right that it is impossible to know for an absolute, incontrovertible fact. But it’s not at all 50/50. There are lots of considerations that go into a textual decision, and in this case virtually all the indications point in one direction.
Just pre-ordered Bart’s next book on Amazon “The Triumph of Christianity.” Can’t wait!
Thanks for letting us know that’s possible now! I went directly there and pre-ordered it.
When/how did the idea of the Antichrist go from being understood as Nero, Satan or the son of Satan (as Jesus is the son of God)? And is there a difference between Satan and Lucifer?
Satan and Lucifer are different figures in the Bible. I’m not familiar with the idea that the AntiChrist is Satan (he’s clearly not in the Bible). And I don’t know when the idea of “son of Satan” appeared. So, basically, I’m of no use to you!
Son of Satan? Marvel Comics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimon_Hellstrom
😉
In other news, if any world leader is able to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Arabs…………………I hope it’s not a seven-year deal or two billion people are going to freak out.
For a while I was trying to find a gematrial explanation for 666, but then recently the thought occured to me was this is the sum of the first six Roman numerals: I=1, V=5, X=10, L=50, C=100, and D=500. 1+5+10+50+100+500=666. Is this just a coincidence? Maybe. But I don’t think so. I think this is what 666 is refering to. I think it is a reference to the Roman Empire by way of their counting system. And, possibly, the reason the author of Revelation believes the reader would get this reference is that right around this period the Roman numerals became strongly associated with Roman rule. What would cause such an association? Maybe a Roman reform that forced Greeks to use Roman numerals — possibly in their financial records or government documents. So I skimmed the history from Vespasian to Hadrian — the time when Revelation was likely written — looking for reforms that may have involved Greeks being forced to adopt Roman numerals, but, alas, I have yet to find any recorded reforms that fit this theory. But I did notice that a couple Emperors are associated with important civil reforms; namely, Domitian and Hadrian. A more exhaustive search would probably be necessary, but who has time for that? If anyone were to find any such reform in the history of that period, however, that would probably pin-point, within only a few years, the year when Revelation was actually composed.
I haven’t dug deeply into the various explanations over the years (as I indicated, there are probably 666 of them), but I don’t recall having heard that one. Interesting!
Alas, I haven’t researched deeply enough into the Book of Revelation or that period in Roman History to adequately prove this hypothesis, but the little that I do know does point to this being a potential solution. If 666 is a reference to the Roman numeral system, it might explain why the author talks about everyone receiving the “charagma” of “the beast” on their palms and foreheads. They’re required to conduct all financial transactions using Roman numerals (no one can buy or sell without having the mark) and Roman coinage, having Roman letters, will imprint those marks on people’s palms as they hold them. Moreover, those Greeks forced to use Roman currency are compelled to use Roman coins in the tradition of Charon’s Obol, where coins are placed on or in the mouth of the recently deceased, to use as payment across the river Styx. The mark on the “forehead” may be a reference to this practice, possibly a reference to the same practice but with the coin placed over the eyes rather than in the mouth. Anyhow, as I said, I think there’s something to this hypothesis, but who has the time to really dig into it?
I went back and looked at my notes and I misremembered the Emperors that had major financial reforms. They were, rather, Domitian and Trajan. (Indeed, Hadrian’s reforms were directed toward greater Hellenization!) Domitian, in particular, was known to severely enforce the Fiscus Iudaicus, which, I presume, is one reason why many scholars think Revelation was written during his reign. But it was during Trajan’s reign that the Empire imposed the so-called Correctores, Roman officials whose job it was to “correct” the Greek city-states under Roman control. Part of this act of “correction,” apparently, involved monitoring and auditing the finances of these Greek cities, which may have involved forcing Greek treasurers to keep their records using Roman numerals. And if city officials had to keep records using Roman numerals, then so did local merchants. And if local merchants used Roman numerals, then so did their customers, and so on. This may be the reform that is alluded to in Revelation’s 666 line. Who knows? But if it is a reference to Trajan’s reforms, that might explain the reference to the first Beast ruling for 3 and a half years. Though Trajan’s predecessor Nerva was only Emperor for a little over a year, the author of Revelation may be misremembering how long (or short) Nerva actually ruled. Anyhow, like I said, who has the time to confirm this hypothesis?
What did the ancients take the “7 planets” to be? They presumably wouldn’t have defined “planet” as we do, or thought of Earth itself as being one. Would they have called the Sun and Moon “planets”? Along with Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn?
Yes, the sun and moon were included in the count.
Hello DR Ehrman:
I haven’t been online for over a month because I had no internet. I’m living in Puerto Rico. Thank God I’m okay. My home is OK. The hurricane, ‘Maria’, didn’t do as much damage in my area as it did in other parts of the Island. I didn’t have electricity for 37 days. Anyway just wanted to let you know.
I have a lot of catching up to do here on your blog.
~Cheito-
We’re all so sorry about PR, and the ongoing, horrific difficulties. Keep safe and well.
Thank you DR Ehrman!
Note too that the Noble Lie in Book 2 of Plato’s “Laws” is told in section 666 (666 a-c). The New Testament writer may have been alluding to Plato’s idea of the pierced, just man (Republic 2, 362 a). It may be that Socrates was lying to get himself killed as a martyr for his ethical cause. Socrates’ last words were “Let us give a rooster to Aesclepius,” implying that the poison he took was a cure for life. Maybe the point of the Anti-Christ is to argue Jesus, like Socrates, wanted to die a martyr’s death. Maybe Jesus wanted to die a well known death so his disciples could immediately start telling the noble lie of his resurrection appearances in hopes of creating a better world. The question is, what did the New Testament writers think the Anti-Christ could say or do that would put the Jesus movement in jeopardy?
666 in the Laws is simply the modern editorial editing. The Antichrist would oppose, persecute (and execute) Christians
Wow, that is a really, really specific theory.
What is the significance of the beast being allowed to exercise authority for 42 months in v5?
Symbolic number. Three and a half years, one half of the perfect number seven.
Hi Bart,
I enjoyed your articles on the textual differences regarding 666, I wasn’t aware of the 616. I just wanted to query one small thing though. You mention seven planets. Strictly speaking only five planets were known in those times (not including Earth). I assume the other two are the Moon and Sun? I wasn’t aware that the ancients regarded them as planets.
Yup, the sun and moon are counted.
Prof, another couple of off-topic questions please:
From E. P. Sanders’, “Paul: The apostle’s life, letters, and thought,” he posits the following understandings, where I wonder if these are widely held:
1. that “many people who now accept body/soul dualism do not know that it is Greek rather than Jewish in origin[,]”
and, that
2. “[r]esurrection was originally a Persian (Zoroastrian) conception.”
Forgot to mention that for item 2, Sanders referenced Mary Boyce, “Persian Religion in the Achemenid Age,” in Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. W. D. Davis and Louis Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 1:301; Shaul Shaked, “Iranian Influence on Judaism: First Century b.c.e. to Second Century c.e.,” in Cambridge History of Judaism, 1:323.
Both views are indeed widely held among scholars, though the second has been called into doubt in recent years.
Is it possible that Jesus adopted his name when he started his ministry?
Do you mean that he was originally called something other than Jesus? There is no evidence of this that I’m aware of.
I certainly don’t have any evidence of it either! But I did use the idea in a piece of (fan) fiction, and it’s possible others have thought of it too.
The idea I used: His original name was Hosea. But he and his followers knew Moses had supposedly told an earlier Hosea to change his name to Yehoshua (“Joshua”). So this Hosea, possibly at the urging of his followers, changed *his* name to the Aramaic equivalent, Yeshua (“Jesus”).
Of course, I know Yeshua was an extremely common name!
It’s easy to read a clear symbolism of imperfection in 666 (as opposed to 777) when numerals are written using decimal place value, but DCLXVI versus DCCLXXVII (I use the example of Roman numeration because I don’t know the Hebrew letters or their values) doesn’t say much, except 666 uses less ink and fits on smaller foreheads than 777. Are interpreters reading something back into the text that just isn’t there? Did the authors of the NT have a decimal system of any sort at their disposal?
They are the same number of letters in the Greek. No, they did not use decimals.
But there is something about the representations of the two numbers that leads to a perception of repeated sixes and sevens?
Yes, one is a repetition of sixes and the other of sevens.
This discussion has touched on a pet peeve of mine. The term Antichrist does not appear in the book of Revelation. It is my understanding that Irenaeus combined the Beast from the Sea from Revelation, the Lawless Man from 2 Thessalonians and gave it (him) the name Antichrist from 1,2 John. He invented a character that is not really in the Bible. If my understanding is incorrect, I am sure Bart can set me straight.
I doubt if Irenaeus himself came up with it. In any event, for the Johannine epistles “the” antichrist is actually a group of people. The word, of course, simply means “opposed to Christ.” It later came to be a technical term used in an eschatological sense.
Of course there were exactly seven planets, because there are seven holes in the human head.
Paraphrasing a theologian in one of Eco’s books.
I’m very sure that these sloppy scribes were unaware that Dr. Ehrman would someday be on their trail ! 🙂 (still trying to catch up *sigh*)
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Sorry if I missed this, but why would the scribes have been trying to conceal Nero’s name and turn it into a number? Was he still alive at this point when these manuscripts were being written and they didn’t want to get into trouble?
Scribe didn’t do that, to our knowledge. The author of Revelation did, and it was because that’s all part of the “apocalypse” genre, where the visions and information are to be symbolic and highly mystical, but the meaning of which discoverable to those who want to know.
Bart,
Do you think the extra ‘n’ was added to make 666 to match the king solomon 666 talents of gold? Since without the ‘n’ it’s 616. Trying to maybe fulfill some secret messianic prophecy or just pure coincidence?
My sense is that it represented the alternative form for Caesar Neron, and it was preferred because 666 is a much more intersting number than 616, in no small measure becuase “six” is the number of imperfection, and of humans, one short of “seven” the number of perfection and God.
So the person who wrote that King Solomon was brought 666 talents of gold probably had the same thinking in mind as trying to show imperfection as did the writer of revelation. Did these guys ever get tired of just copying the Old Testament? 10 plagues, 10 commandments, 10 gentile nations, 10 horns of the beast? Little did they know you’d be on the trail Bart! Thx
Last I read, most experts date Revelation to 90-100 A.C.E. Given that many now see 666 as a reference to Nero, who died around 68 A.C.E., I have a couple of questions.
Have scholars revisited the dating of Revelation?
Does anybody now date it closer to Nero (around 70 A.C.E.)?
Just curious what the thinking is.
all the scholars who date it later know the Nero reference quite well. But the common thought is that the author used a number of earlier sources, or maybe even did a first edition, in the 60s. Still, people always ask the question of dating, some do date it earlier, but it’s usually thoguh that the sequences of kings and such referred to make best sense from the end of the first century.