The problem with trying to harmonize the two is the assumption that "NERO" is the name it obscures. The evidence for that is? Is it that they carry the coin of Rome? cf Mark 12:16.
Another point that has just come to light is the dimensions of the image that Nebuchadnezzar set up - 60 cubits high & six cubits wide. Its pity that the depth is not recorded. Images to worship were in the heavenly sphere so why would he then say that the furnace should be 7 times hotter?
I personally don't buy the whole Nero line of argument for 666/616, but many scholars appear to accept it. See http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/nero.html
Thanks for the Irenaeus link.
As you know, the numbers for the image are related to the sexagesimal numbering system, but not sure I totally understand the point about Nebuchadnezzar. The image was also tied to earth in some way; it was a symbol of political sovereignty and represented the king's authority. To reject the image was to spurn the king.
One would have to wonder who and why specific the dimensions are given in the first place. Did Daniel get out a tape measure (I am not trying to be sarcastic). Even if it was a likeliness of the king himself it would still be perceived as the heavenly sphere.
That was why I posted - https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/symposia/religion-and-power-divine-kingship-ancient-world-and-beyond-0
Daniel 3:1 just mentions the dimensions of the statue. I don't see the difficulty, for why would Daniel have to measure the image to know its dimensions? Ezekiel supplies all kinds of measurements in chaps. 40-48 of his book. Are we to assume that he measured everything that is contained in those chapters? The same question might be asked of John and Revelation. Why would something in the heavenly sphere keep Jehovah's spokesman from writing out its measurements? New Jerusalem is in the heavenly sphere and John talks profusely about its measurements.
The point of my question about Daniel is that he could have been inspired to write about the measurements or someone could have told him the measurements. The image was a tangible item that could easily be measured, even if it represented something heavenly.
One doesn't have to measure the statue of liberty personally in order to know its dimensions.
Ezekiel is framed "In the visions of God" but this is not, and giving the width and the height? even if someone else measured, why 6 & 60? This point cannot be minimized.
Daniel had vision as well although Dan. 3 is not an example of those visions. Still, they're words attributed to the prophet. The 6 and 60 reflect the sexagesimal system and there is probably a similar account where width and height are given.
Zdravko Stefanovic's remarks are worth reading in their entirety, but here's part of what he observes (Danie Wisdom to the Wise, page 122):
The statue was of gigantic proportions, and its appearance was more like an obelisk due to its massive foundation. Its height, about ninety feet, or thirty meters, was ten times greater than its width. The dimensions given in the original text are sixty cubits times six cubits. That conforms with the sexagesimal system handed down by the Sumerians and widely used in Babylon. In this system, the numbers six and sixty comprise the base figure (cf. 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 360 degrees, etc). The number sixty was associated with Anu, the chief god of the Babylonian trinity. The sexagesimal system of counting has "certain advantages over the decimal system. For example, 60 is divisible evenly by 12 factors, whereas 100 is divisible evenly by only 9 factors."13 Since the proportions 1:10 are not typical in the construction of statues, it is possible that the dimensions sixty and six that are given here are not just literal but have a symbolic meaning as well.
From the Daniel CCommentary edited by Tremper Longman and David E. Garland:
At issue in the story is a giant image erected by Nebuchadnezzar (v.1) and his subsequent decree that all of his royal subjects must bow down and worship the image (vv.6, 11). The term “image” (Aram. el m) simply refers to a statue or stela of some sort. The extreme height (ninety feet) and narrow width (nine feet) of the image suggests the form of an obelisk or totem pole (e.g., Porteous, 57; see BBCOT, 734). Commentators debate whether the image represents the king or a deity of the Babylonian pantheon (cf. Goldingay, 70). Wallace, 64, rightly points out that the matter is left intentionally vague. The statue could represent whatever anyone wants it to symbolize, whether the spirit of Babylon, the king himself, one of the traditional deities (e.g., Marduk according to Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 109), or even a syncretistic focal point for the various religions of Nebuchadnezzar’s realm. The fact that the statue is overlaid with gold may indicate that Nebuchadnezzar has been influenced by Daniel’s interpretation of the king’s statue-dream identifying him as the “head of gold” (2:28; cf. Young, 84).
The relief thus yields only the fourth certain representation of Nebuchadnezzar to be discovered; the others are carved on cliff-faces in Lebanon, at Wadi Brisa (two reliefs, Weissbach 1906: 23 figs. 2 and 3; 8; Börker-Klähn 1982: I 228, II nos. 259–60; Da Riva 2010: 173–74 and figs. 34) and at Shir es-Sanam (one relief, Da Riva 2010: 175–76 and fig. 5).
Here's Craig Keener's take on the 666 issue. See his NIV Application Commentary:
The majority of commentators find an allusion to Nero Caesar’s name as written in Hebrew characters here.³⁰ Other commentators object that John writes in Greek rather than in Hebrew; but this is not the only place where John employs a wordplay requiring some knowledge of Hebrew (9:11; 16:16). Further, some other documents calculate the numbers of Greek words in Hebrew letters (3 Bar. 4:3–7, 10, including “dragon”).³¹ Some commentators also doubt that the spelling of “Nero Caesar,” which comes out to “666,” was the most natural way to spell the name in Hebrew; but John had other reasons (noted above) to spell it so as to come up with “666,” and archae- ologists have uncovered a document from the Judean desert that spells the name precisely this way.³² Interestingly, some copyists preferred for “666” the questionable reading “616,” which is another way that one could count “Nero Caesar” (omitting a debatable letter). This change suggests that the scribes knew the tradition of the name that the number should spell, and re- spelled it accordingly!³³ When the people of the empire played on Nero’s name in Greek, they calculated not only the number of his name but linked his name with an appropriate phrase that yielded the same number (“he killed his mother”— Nero was a matricide). “Beast” (therion) can be transliterated into Hebrew as “TRYVN,” which also comes out to 666; the number “of the beast” is not surprisingly literally the “beast”! (Note again that the less original reading “616”—written in Hebrew letters as “TRYV”—can transliterate the Greek “theriou,” that is, the possessive form “of the beast.”)³⁴ Many Jewish Christians moved to Asia after the fall of Judea in the war of A.D. 66–70, and many of them would have known some Hebrew. But undoubtedly John writes in a riddle the answer to which many would already have known.³⁵
Keener's work was published in 1999 so unless it has been updated it has limited usefulness on this question. It also highlights the significant flaw in trying to attach a name to the number. How many other words could equate to 666 of 616?
You might have noticed that I have posted the most recent studies/commentaries and a Greek text from 2017 that deals with 666, even if Keener is older. So we know what the consensus for this issue is and that includes the work done by Malik. Furthermore, although Keener's work is older, nothing I read in his work conflicts (at least not seriosuly) with the recent studies. Besides, I object to attaching names to Revelation 13:18 and 666. People have been doing that in error for about 1800 years or so. :)
John closes this section with a statement that has fascinated and puzzled interpreters throughout history. He summons the readers to be wise so that they can calculate the number of the beast. We are told the number is the number of a man: 666. Some manuscripts read 616, but the best reading is 666. If the number refers to a particular individual, the best guess is Nero. If “Nero Caesar” is transliterated from Greek to Hebrew, the letters calculate to 666, though it is doubtful the original audience would have understood this complex solution.
Many wild speculations about the identity of the person have been promoted throughout history, and every guess has so far been wrong. The advantage of seeing a reference to Nero is that he fits the time period in which John wrote, at which time there was speculation and fear that Nero would return from Parthia after his death. Still, seeing a reference to Nero isn’t easy or obvious, for one must transliterate from Greek to Hebrew to get the number 666, which seems like a stretch for the audience. Also, as noted earlier, if Revelation was written in the 90s, fear of Nero’s return would have lessened considerably by that time. Perhaps it is better to move in a different direction.
I see no conincidence regarding the dimensions of the image in Daniel on the plane of Dura. Their idea of heavenly perfection. It is interesting that Babylonians themselves perceived there 36 gods as being evil and destructive for the most part.
I don't think the numbers for the image are coincidental either, but it's also not clear if the image stands for the king whether than for a god. I lean in that direction. Some scholarly works mention that possibility too.
Hi Edgar, I agree the number does not refer to Nero. But I think the 616 derives from seeing Nero's isopsephy/gematria as totallying 666, and dropping the conspicuous and problematic final 'N' to make 616.
The first one is contrived and designed to total 666, while the last one assumes Nero is correct and drops the final N since that would be 700. But that leaves a number that is itself conspicuous.
Hi Jim, yes, I agree that 616 derives from dropping the N. This reading appeared early, but so did much of this reasoning about Rome fulfilling the prophecies in Revelation as Irenaeus testifies. I would encourage a reading of the other Revelation commentaries from the patristic era. For example, Oecumenius and Hippolytus. I appreciate your input.
Thank you Edgar, and I always appreciate your input which is always indefatigably educational. This subject is an old favorite of mine and I did a lot of research on this using Bethel's libraries back in the day. But never from Oecumenius and Hippolytus. It is fascinating that Oecumenius dispensed with mentioning Nero and spent time considering "O NIKETES" (70,50,10,20,8,300,8,200) "the conqueror." Hippolytus also does not apply 666 to Nero even though employing isopsephy. All this math reminds me I'm talking to a polymath. ;-)
I've enjoyed our discussions through the years and learned from them all. You even checked out Oecumenius and Hippolytus that quickly. Very studious of you. All the best, bro.
P.S. I also remember when you did your gematria research. It comes in handy now.
Thanks, Duncan. Aune's Revelation commentary in the Word series has to be the most or close to being the most thorough. I used to own all 3 volumes, but sold them years ago. I now have one of the volumes in digital form and I'm considering getting the other two--just don't want to pay full price. Anyway, lots of stuff to ponder in Aune and in Gregory Beale's Revelation commentary.
Okay, I now see where you're angling, maybe. My mind was so focused on 666 that I wasn't thinking about the variant 616 and how it might connect to what you're suggesting. BTW, Google, I assure you that I'm no robot.
Thanks for posting the Bede data. I agree that the Google robot thing is irritating. I need to moderate comments, but it even makes me prove I'm not a robot.
Dating ancient events is complex. Don't know if you've read Gertoux and his work on absolute chronology. There is also the story of how BC and AD came about as anchors of history, but now BCE and CE are more common.
The problem with trying to harmonize the two is the assumption that "NERO" is the name it obscures. The evidence for that is? Is it that they carry the coin of Rome? cf Mark 12:16.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that has just come to light is the dimensions of the image that Nebuchadnezzar set up - 60 cubits high & six cubits wide. Its pity that the depth is not recorded. Images to worship were in the heavenly sphere so why would he then say that the furnace should be 7 times hotter?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.jdavidstark.com/irenaeus-on-666-and-616/
ReplyDeleteSums up Irenaeus logic.
I personally don't buy the whole Nero line of argument for 666/616, but many scholars appear to accept it. See http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/nero.html
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Irenaeus link.
As you know, the numbers for the image are related to the sexagesimal numbering system, but not sure I totally understand the point about Nebuchadnezzar. The image was also tied to earth in some way; it was a symbol of political sovereignty and represented the king's authority. To reject the image was to spurn the king.
One would have to wonder who and why specific the dimensions are given in the first place. Did Daniel get out a tape measure (I am not trying to be sarcastic). Even if it was a likeliness of the king himself it would still be perceived as the heavenly sphere.
ReplyDeleteThat was why I posted - https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/symposia/religion-and-power-divine-kingship-ancient-world-and-beyond-0
Daniel 3:1 just mentions the dimensions of the statue. I don't see the difficulty, for why would Daniel have to measure the image to know its dimensions? Ezekiel supplies all kinds of measurements in chaps. 40-48 of his book. Are we to assume that he measured everything that is contained in those chapters? The same question might be asked of John and Revelation. Why would something in the heavenly sphere keep Jehovah's spokesman from writing out its measurements? New Jerusalem is in the heavenly sphere and John talks profusely about its measurements.
ReplyDeleteThe point of my question about Daniel is that he could have been inspired to write about the measurements or someone could have told him the measurements. The image was a tangible item that could easily be measured, even if it represented something heavenly.
ReplyDeleteOne doesn't have to measure the statue of liberty personally in order to know its dimensions.
Ezekiel is framed "In the visions of God" but this is not, and giving the width and the height? even if someone else measured, why 6 & 60? This point cannot be minimized.
ReplyDeleteDaniel had vision as well although Dan. 3 is not an example of those visions. Still, they're words attributed to the prophet. The 6 and 60 reflect the sexagesimal system and there is probably a similar account where width and height are given.
ReplyDeleteZdravko Stefanovic's remarks are worth reading in their entirety, but here's part of what he observes (Danie Wisdom to the Wise, page 122):
ReplyDeleteThe statue was of gigantic proportions, and its appearance was more like an obelisk due to its massive foundation. Its height, about ninety feet, or thirty meters, was ten times greater than its width. The dimensions given in the original text are sixty cubits times six cubits. That conforms with the sexagesimal system handed down by the Sumerians and widely used in Babylon. In this system, the numbers six and sixty comprise the base figure (cf. 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 360 degrees, etc). The number sixty was associated with Anu, the chief god of the Babylonian trinity. The sexagesimal system of counting has "certain advantages over the decimal system. For example, 60 is divisible evenly by 12 factors, whereas 100 is divisible evenly by only 9 factors."13
Since the proportions 1:10 are not typical in the construction of statues, it is possible that the dimensions sixty and six that are given here are not just literal but have a symbolic meaning as well.
From the Daniel CCommentary edited by Tremper Longman and David E. Garland:
ReplyDeleteAt issue in the story is a giant image erected by Nebuchadnezzar (v.1) and his subsequent decree that all of his royal subjects must bow down and worship the image (vv.6, 11). The term “image” (Aram. el m) simply refers to a statue or stela of some sort. The extreme height (ninety feet) and narrow width (nine feet) of the image suggests the form of an obelisk or totem pole (e.g., Porteous, 57; see BBCOT, 734). Commentators debate whether the image represents the king or a deity of the Babylonian pantheon (cf. Goldingay, 70). Wallace, 64, rightly points out that the matter is left intentionally vague. The statue could represent whatever anyone wants it to symbolize, whether the spirit of Babylon, the king himself, one of the traditional deities (e.g., Marduk according to Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 109), or even a syncretistic focal point for the various religions of Nebuchadnezzar’s realm. The fact that the statue is overlaid with gold may indicate that Nebuchadnezzar has been influenced by Daniel’s interpretation of the king’s statue-dream identifying him as the “head of gold” (2:28; cf. Young, 84).
https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1982-1/1982-1-03.pdf
ReplyDeleteSome interesting info here.
The image may not have had a thickness like some later Persian ones it may have been carved into a rock cliff face. It may be found one day.
http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=neo_babylonian_weights_and_measures
ReplyDeleteInteresting here. We have units in multiples of 6 and separate units sets in multiples of 7 but not in tens.
The relief thus yields only the fourth certain representation of Nebuchadnezzar to be discovered; the others are carved on cliff-faces in Lebanon, at Wadi Brisa (two reliefs, Weissbach 1906: 23 figs. 2 and 3; 8; Börker-Klähn 1982: I 228, II nos. 259–60; Da Riva 2010: 173–74 and figs. 34) and at Shir es-Sanam (one relief, Da Riva 2010: 175–76 and fig. 5).
ReplyDeletehttp://eprints.soas.ac.uk/11851/7/CUSAS-17-7.pdf
Thanks, Duncan. I'm going to post a few closing thoughts on this subject. Here's one:
ReplyDeleteSee http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1010-99192014000300011
Here's Craig Keener's take on the 666 issue. See his NIV Application Commentary:
ReplyDeleteThe majority of commentators find an allusion to Nero Caesar’s name as written in Hebrew characters here.³⁰ Other commentators object that John writes in Greek rather than in Hebrew; but this is not the only place where John employs a wordplay requiring some knowledge of Hebrew (9:11; 16:16). Further, some other documents calculate the numbers of Greek words in Hebrew letters (3 Bar. 4:3–7, 10, including “dragon”).³¹ Some commentators also doubt that the spelling of “Nero Caesar,” which comes out to “666,” was the most natural way to spell the name in Hebrew; but John had other reasons (noted above) to spell it so as to come up with “666,” and archae- ologists have uncovered a document from the Judean desert that spells the name precisely this way.³² Interestingly, some copyists preferred for “666” the questionable reading “616,” which is another way that one could count “Nero Caesar” (omitting a debatable letter). This change suggests that the scribes knew the tradition of the name that the number should spell, and re- spelled it accordingly!³³ When the people of the empire played on Nero’s name in Greek, they calculated not only the number of his name but linked his name with an appropriate phrase that yielded the same number (“he killed his mother”— Nero was a matricide). “Beast” (therion) can be transliterated into Hebrew as “TRYVN,” which also comes out to 666; the number “of the beast” is not surprisingly literally the “beast”! (Note again that the less original reading “616”—written in Hebrew letters as “TRYV”—can transliterate the Greek “theriou,” that is, the possessive form “of the beast.”)³⁴ Many Jewish Christians moved to Asia after the fall of Judea in the war of A.D. 66–70, and many of them would have known some Hebrew. But undoubtedly John writes in a riddle the answer to which many would already have known.³⁵
Keener's work was published in 1999 so unless it has been updated it has limited usefulness on this question. It also highlights the significant flaw in trying to attach a name to the number. How many other words could equate to 666 of 616?
ReplyDeleteYou might have noticed that I have posted the most recent studies/commentaries and a Greek text from 2017 that deals with 666, even if Keener is older. So we know what the consensus for this issue is and that includes the work done by Malik. Furthermore, although Keener's work is older, nothing I read in his work conflicts (at least not seriosuly) with the recent studies. Besides, I object to attaching names to Revelation 13:18 and 666. People have been doing that in error for about 1800 years or so. :)
ReplyDeleteHere is an article dated 10/8/2018:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.crossway.org/articles/what-is-the-mark-of-the-beast-revelation-13/
One quote about Rev. 13:18:
John closes this section with a statement that has fascinated and puzzled interpreters throughout history. He summons the readers to be wise so that they can calculate the number of the beast. We are told the number is the number of a man: 666. Some manuscripts read 616, but the best reading is 666. If the number refers to a particular individual, the best guess is Nero. If “Nero Caesar” is transliterated from Greek to Hebrew, the letters calculate to 666, though it is doubtful the original audience would have understood this complex solution.
Many wild speculations about the identity of the person have been promoted throughout history, and every guess has so far been wrong. The advantage of seeing a reference to Nero is that he fits the time period in which John wrote, at which time there was speculation and fear that Nero would return from Parthia after his death. Still, seeing a reference to Nero isn’t easy or obvious, for one must transliterate from Greek to Hebrew to get the number 666, which seems like a stretch for the audience. Also, as noted earlier, if Revelation was written in the 90s, fear of Nero’s return would have lessened considerably by that time. Perhaps it is better to move in a different direction.
Another commentary with plenty to say about 666/616 is Craig Koester's Anchor Bible work on Revelation. Published in 2014.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/big-history-project/agriculture-civilization/first-cities-states/a/uruk
ReplyDeleteWe have six and ten as early numbers systems but it seems that 6 is the system that was used for heaven and the gods.
It would appear that many are seeking an alternative solution that may involve "Sigilla Solis".
https://www.academia.edu/2360661/Babylonian_Lunar_Six_Tablets
ReplyDeleteI see no conincidence regarding the dimensions of the image in Daniel on the plane of Dura. Their idea of heavenly perfection. It is interesting that Babylonians themselves perceived there 36 gods as being evil and destructive for the most part.
I don't think the numbers for the image are coincidental either, but it's also not clear if the image stands for the king whether than for a god. I lean in that direction. Some scholarly works mention that possibility too.
ReplyDeleteHi Edgar, I agree the number does not refer to Nero. But I think the 616 derives from seeing Nero's isopsephy/gematria as totallying 666, and dropping the conspicuous and problematic final 'N' to make 616.
ReplyDeleteNRWN QSR
50+200+6+50 + 100+60+200 = 666
NRW QSR
50+200+6 + 100+60+200 = 616
The first one is contrived and designed to total 666, while the last one assumes Nero is correct and drops the final N since that would be 700. But that leaves a number that is itself conspicuous.
Hi Jim, yes, I agree that 616 derives from dropping the N. This reading appeared early, but so did much of this reasoning about Rome fulfilling the prophecies in Revelation as Irenaeus testifies. I would encourage a reading of the other Revelation commentaries from the patristic era. For example, Oecumenius and Hippolytus. I appreciate your input.
ReplyDeleteThank you Edgar, and I always appreciate your input which is always indefatigably educational. This subject is an old favorite of mine and I did a lot of research on this using Bethel's libraries back in the day. But never from Oecumenius and Hippolytus. It is fascinating that Oecumenius dispensed with mentioning Nero and spent time considering "O NIKETES" (70,50,10,20,8,300,8,200) "the conqueror." Hippolytus also does not apply 666 to Nero even though employing isopsephy. All this math reminds me I'm talking to a polymath. ;-)
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jim. You're not too shabby yourself. :)
ReplyDeleteI've enjoyed our discussions through the years and learned from them all. You even checked out Oecumenius and Hippolytus that quickly. Very studious of you. All the best, bro.
P.S. I also remember when you did your gematria research. It comes in handy now.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=b1ErDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0310587263&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEqtfD7dngAhXITBUIHfB-AkgQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=666&f=false
ReplyDeleteThanks, Duncan. Aune's Revelation commentary in the Word series has to be the most or close to being the most thorough. I used to own all 3 volumes, but sold them years ago. I now have one of the volumes in digital form and I'm considering getting the other two--just don't want to pay full price. Anyway, lots of stuff to ponder in Aune and in Gregory Beale's Revelation commentary.
ReplyDeleteHere's something extremely tenuous but I will put it out their.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.loebclassics.com/view/bede-ecclesiastical_history_english_nation/1930/pb_LCL248.375.xml
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arrapha
I approved your post, Duncan, but I'm wondering how it connects with 666. I thought you were going to mention Bede's handling of the name-number.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I now see where you're angling, maybe. My mind was so focused on 666 that I wasn't thinking about the variant 616 and how it might connect to what you're suggesting. BTW, Google, I assure you that I'm no robot.
ReplyDeleteIt his reference to dating BCE. How far back does the tracking of chronology from that point go?
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=v5IGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=bede+666&source=bl&ots=P_5AmYEw8A&sig=ACfU3U2zzL98mJorG0KU8NADEXvp4hq0GQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_3oaHgOPgAhWqRxUIHXzpAx4Q6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=bede%20666&f=false
ReplyDeleteThis covers bede's take on 666.
That robot box is getting really irritating again.
Thanks for posting the Bede data. I agree that the Google robot thing is irritating. I need to moderate comments, but it even makes me prove I'm not a robot.
ReplyDeleteDating ancient events is complex. Don't know if you've read Gertoux and his work on absolute chronology. There is also the story of how BC and AD came about as anchors of history, but now BCE and CE are more common.