Understanding 666 in context

Posted: 3rd December 2007 by ElShaddai Edwards in Uncategorized
7

Bryan Lilly at ἀκολουθέω Χριστόν (“I follow Christ”) has written a series of posts from a partial-preterist viewpoint on the number of the beast: 666. He correctly, in my opinion, identifies the first beast as Roman emperor Nero, representing the political power of the time, and the second beast as the apostate Jewish religious leaders. His series is titled “Attempting to Understand 666 in its Context”: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. He promises additional installments as well, the next one tackling the resurrection of the (first) beast.

  1. Steve says:
    December 3, 2007 at 9:55 PM

    Perhaps the best evidence that Nero may have been the referent for 666 is in a rare textual variant; as Chilton describes:

    The form Neron Kesar (1) is the linguistically “correct” Hebrew form, (2) is the form found in the Talmud and other rabbinical writings, and (3) was used by Hebrews in the first century, as archaeological evidence has shown. As F. W. Farrar observed, “the Jewish Christian would have tried the name as he thought of the name-that is in Hebrew letters. And the moment he did this the secret stood revealed. No Jew ever thought of Nero except as ‘Neron Kesar,’ and this gives at once . . . 666″ (The Early Days of Christianity, Chicago and New York: Belford, Clarke& Co., 1882, p. 540). Of some related interest is the fact that if Nero’s name is written without the final n (i.e., the way it would occur to a Gentile to spell it in Hebrew), it yields the number 616 — which is exactly the variant reading in a few New Testament manuscripts. The most reasonable explanation for this variant is that it arose from the confusion over the final n.

    Reply
  2. Bryan says:
    December 3, 2007 at 10:54 PM

    I will talking specifically about 666/616 in a later post :)

    Reply
  3. ElShaddai Edwards says:
    December 3, 2007 at 11:01 PM

    In my earlier post on 666 in 1 Chronicles, this comment was made:

    If you will check Ireaneus’ work “Against Heresies” you wil find that he sites the “616″ variant as being the work of heretics who were modifying the text of Revelations for their own purposes.
    Although this variant was known it was generally ignored until the first edition of the RSV introduced it into a footnote.
    Your overall presentation is good, but it’s risky to rest the arguement on a historicly disputed variant.
    Particularly one with such early counter testimony.

    It would be good for any new post on 666/616 to speak to this objection, if possible.

    Reply
  4. Bryan says:
    December 3, 2007 at 11:28 PM

    Hmm interesting. I will certainly see if I can find anything. Perhaps I will shoot Ken Gentry and email.

    Reply
  5. Bryan says:
    December 3, 2007 at 11:28 PM

    Is there a citation for Ag Her. so I can read it in context?

    Reply
  6. Bryan says:
    December 3, 2007 at 11:41 PM

    Gentry in “Before Jerusalem Fell” discusses the 616 variant on pages 196-198, and 201-203.

    Interestingly on pg 197 He adds in footnote 18:
    “…Most patristic scholars believe this to be added by a hand other than Irenaeus’s. See Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers… 1:558 n. 4.”

    P.S. I’m sorry for all the comments on this post

    Reply
  7. ElShaddai Edwards says:
    December 4, 2007 at 4:33 AM

    Thanks for looking that up, Bryan. I have a copy of Gentry’s book, but never got around to looking through the notes. I really ought to go and review his text again.

    Reply