616 instead of 666?

[Radiata]

I found this article while looking through the ancient archives of a still living Christian thread.
http://axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=136&num=17640

Do you think it's true? And if it is, is there any significance to it? What would change if it is indeed 616?

[filosofer]

There have been manuscript variants for 616.

This does lend itself to identifying the person as Nero. Using Greek letters for numbers (which was the common practice in 1st century), then we can add the numbers of the name together to get:

Nero = 616 (νερο)

Neron = 666 (νερον)

The trailing -n (letter is "nu" in Greek ν)was sometimes added in Greek to make the follow-on word phonetically smoother.

[RevCowboy]

There have been manuscript variants for 616.

This does lend itself to identifying the person as Nero. Using Greek letters for numbers (which was the common practice in 1st century), then we can add the numbers of the name together to get:

Nero = 616 (νερο)

Neron = 666 (νερον)

The trailing -n (letter is "nu" in Greek ν)was sometimes added in Greek to make the follow-on word phonetically smoother.




Nouns also have different endings in Greek depending on the case and verb tense of the related verb.

My understanding was that 616 could also be added to spell the world Caesar God and 666 was Caeasar Nero. In the either the case the number was code that stated that Caesar was the anti-Christ. Although the emperor who persecuted Christians the most was not Nero, but Diocleacian. Rather, Nero was the symbol of Christian persecution.

[filosofer]

Nouns also have different endings in Greek depending on the case and verb tense of the related verb.

My understanding was that 616 could also be added to spell the world Caesar God and 666 was Caeasar Nero. In the either the case the number was code that stated that Caesar was the anti-Christ. Although the emperor who persecuted Christians the most was not Nero, but Diocleacian. Rather, Nero was the symbol of Christian persecution.

Of course, if John wrote Revelation prior to AD 70, then the reference is indeed to Nero. (BTW, I accept this as the date for Revelation - and all the NT).

[DaRev]

The trailing -n (letter is "nu" in Greek ν)was sometimes added in Greek to make the follow-on word phonetically smoother.




Also known as the "nuisance 'nu'". ^_^

[Edial]

I found this article while looking through the ancient archives of a still living Christian thread.
http://axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=136&num=17640

Do you think it's true? And if it is, is there any significance to it? What would change if it is indeed 616?
There is an excellent article on this in Wikipedia ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast

666 vs 616 is an ongoing debate among some theologians.

Theologians that believe the number is 616 say so because this manuscript is of the earlier date of the manuscripts that we possess today.

However, we have a testimony of Iraneus, who was born prior to when this manuscript was written (125? AD).
A quote from the link ...
"The early Church father Irenaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus) knew several occurrences of the 616-variant but regarded them as a scribal error and affirmed that the number 666 stood "in all the most approved and ancient copies" and is attested by "those men who saw John face to face"."

He said that based on other more ancient manuscripts they had at the time, it is 666.

Today, we do not have these manuscripts, so we do not have a fuller picture and cannot really claim that it is 616 simply because it says so in one of the manuscripts that we possess. :)
(Canonical manuscripts were selected based on their identity with other manuscripts of the earlier age. Also, if a manuscript contained any error or "typo" it was not selected for the canon.
AND, it is possible that they had at least some of the original letters. But I am not certain about this).

He also said that it is confirmed by the ones that "saw John face to face".

To me, this is a powerful testimony from Iraneus that should not be ignored.

Irenaes was one of the people who contributed to establishing the Canon of the NT, which was finalized later on.
So, he knew a lot about manuscripts.

Some theologians are also making a mistake of "reading into a text".
They are applying historical events towards interpreting the text.
If they think that antichrist is Nero, they think the text is 666.
If it is someone else, they think it is 616.
So, they "choose" a manuscript that agrees with their interpretation.

It is an incorrect approach.

The most reliable manuscripts that the Church Fathers had (which we do not possess :)) present the number to be 666.

In other words, the the evidence that the Church Fathers had is far weightier than the one we have today, some 1700 years later.

Anti-christians and some liberal Christians (not all) that do not agree with some parts of the Scriptures, say that the Church Fathers "adjusted" the evidence.
Based on the manuscripts we have today, we certainly cannot support this "theory". We clearly have early manuscripts supporting them.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[filosofer]

Some theologians are also making a mistake of "reading into a text".
They are applying historical events towards interpreting the text.
If they think that antichrist is Nero, they think the text is 666.
If it is someone else, they think it is 616.
So, they "choose" a manuscript that agrees with their interpretation.

It is an incorrect approach.


The point of the ECF testimony is important, but not necessarily decisive.

Of course, that is why Nero looks appealing, because it can satisfy either number, without having to "choose" a manuscript tradition.

=========

Far different than those who claim that one of the Reformers or a contemporary leader fits the role of anti-christ. However, most who make these claims use English numbering rather than Greek. But hey, why spoil a good theory with facts, eh? ^_^

[Tofferer]

I've read a little bit about this. My hermaneutics professor and my Survey of the New Testament professor had different views. One subscribed absolutely to 666 and the other to 616. I supposed that the 616 camp has better evidence at this point, however we can not possibly know what discoveries we may yet find...