616 or 666 in Revelation?

[ALAYMAN]

I heard on a podcast recently that Dan Wallace had said that he saw the actual papyri and that it was 616.

My understanding is that in 2005  one papyri from the 3rd century (discovered in Egypt) was  616 instead of 666.  It obviously wasn't the original and it's just something to give bored scholars something to hoot about.

Yeah. Sure..... A KJVOist wouldn't accept anything out Egypt while ignoring the fact God preserved Abraham in Egypt as well as the children or Israel. Yeah. Nothing "good" ever come out of Egypt.

Irenaeus witnessed a Greek variant in the 2nd century. Early Latin texts contain 616. Its not something new. The "new" early witness in "115" revived the debate and added a early manuscript witness to the collection of evidence.

ummmmm, I've no dog in this fight, but Edwards ain't a KJVOist.

 

[Ransom]

ummmmm, I've no dog in this fight, but Edwards ain't a KJVOist.

Yeezy uses "KJVOist" the same way KJVOists use the term "apostate." It doesn't actually have any more semantic content than calling someone a "poo head."

 

[praise_yeshua]

I heard on a podcast recently that Dan Wallace had said that he saw the actual papyri and that it was 616.

My understanding is that in 2005  one papyri from the 3rd century (discovered in Egypt) was  616 instead of 666.  It obviously wasn't the original and it's just something to give bored scholars something to hoot about.

Yeah. Sure..... A KJVOist wouldn't accept anything out Egypt while ignoring the fact God preserved Abraham in Egypt as well as the children or Israel. Yeah. Nothing "good" ever come out of Egypt.

Irenaeus witnessed a Greek variant in the 2nd century. Early Latin texts contain 616. Its not something new. The "new" early witness in "115" revived the debate and added a early manuscript witness to the collection of evidence.

ummmmm, I've no dog in this fight, but Edwards ain't a KJVOist.

Okay.... but he clearly referred to the text coming out of Egypt. I don't understand why he would mention it unless he was seeking to discredit it because of the source.

Which, by the way, is exactly what KJVOist do to discredit texts that do not conform to the TR.

Just saying. If he isn't one, then great.

 

[praise_yeshua]

ummmmm, I've no dog in this fight, but Edwards ain't a KJVOist.

Yeezy uses "KJVOist" the same way KJVOists use the term "apostate." It doesn't actually have any more semantic content than calling someone a "poo head."

Sure "Grumpy". That's exactly what I do....  :

I don't believe KJVOists are apostate. I have never claimed that and wouldn't. Mistaken.... Yes. Intellectually challenged...Yes. Apostate.... NO.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Okay.... but he clearly referred to the text coming out of Egypt. I don't understand why he would mention it unless he was seeking to discredit it because of the source.

Which, by the way, is exactly what KJVOist do to discredit texts that do not conform to the TR.

Just saying. If he isn't one, then great.

Edwards is a good guy, from the Wesleyan tradition if I remember right, and plenty able to make cogent reasons for why he believes as he does without any spurious guilt by association arguments.  He just ain't very likely to come back and go toe-to-toe with ya.  Not his style.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Okay.... but he clearly referred to the text coming out of Egypt. I don't understand why he would mention it unless he was seeking to discredit it because of the source.

Which, by the way, is exactly what KJVOist do to discredit texts that do not conform to the TR.

Just saying. If he isn't one, then great.

Edwards is a good guy, from the Wesleyan tradition if I remember right, and plenty able to make cogent reasons for why he believes as he does without any spurious guilt by association arguments.  He just ain't very likely to come back and go toe-to-toe with ya.  Not his style.

Okay. I just don't see any reason to bash the text based on the source being Egypt.

 

[Ransom]

I don't believe KJVOists are apostate. I have never claimed that and wouldn't.

I didn't say you did.

Maybe you imagined it, or failed to read properly.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I don't believe KJVOists are apostate. I have never claimed that and wouldn't.

I didn't say you did.

Maybe you imagined it, or failed to read properly.

You said that I used the same way a KJVOist uses the word apostasy. Maybe you don't understand your own words. You've been that problem recently.

 

[Ransom]

You said that I used the same way a KJVOist uses the word apostasy.

Which, for some stupid reason, you think is the equivalent of you calling the KJVOists apostates, rather than what it actually was, an analogy.

Maybe you wouldn't be so angry all the time if you read more carefully before you started yelling at things.

 

[FSSL]

Irenaeus witnessed a Greek variant in the 2nd century. Early Latin texts contain 616. Its not something new. The "new" early witness in "115" revived the debate and added a early manuscript witness to the collection of evidence.

So, we now have, three mss with 616. As Wallace, himself said, the issue has "fairly benign implications."

 

[praise_yeshua]

Irenaeus witnessed a Greek variant in the 2nd century. Early Latin texts contain 616. Its not something new. The "new" early witness in "115" revived the debate and added a early manuscript witness to the collection of evidence.

So, we now have, three mss with 616. As Wallace, himself said, the issue has "fairly benign implications."

You didn't even read the article..... and its more than three mss.

Here, I'll highlight what you missed.

Actually, the verdict is not in on this one yet. I am inclined to the view that the original wording here was 616, but a lot of work is needed to determine this

You might notice the article you linked is rather old. He has written other articles since and done interviews on the subject.

Irenaeus devotes an entire chapter to a discussion of the variant in Rev 13:18 (AH 5.30). He does not speak of the original text, however, but does address the earliest copies that he had seen. He compares the two readings, 616 and 666, and gives the palm to 666. However, since he also gives it a spiritual interpretation, one has to wonder whether his motives clouded his judgment and whether the church, under his spell, began to copy out 666 here instead of 616. Until just a few years ago, the only known manuscript to have 616 in Rev 13:18 was Ephraemi Rescriptus (codex C), a fifth century codex and the second most important manuscript of the Apocalypse. Then, with the discovery of sixteen or seventeen NT papyri at the Ashmolean Museum of Oxford University just a few years ago, confirmation of this reading appeared. The earliest manuscript on Rev 13, now P115 from the third or perhaps fourth century, also has the reading 616. I looked at the papyrus in 2003 while visiting Oxford, examining it under a microscope. Clearly, it had the reading 616 in the original hand?no erasures, no alterations. Nevertheless, back to Irenaeus: It is a curious thing that he doesn?t appeal to the original text of Revelation, which would end all dispute. He only appeals to early copies. Perhaps the reason is simply his distance from the source. By comparing what he says with what Tertullian says, access to the original church(es) seems to have been considered crucial for verification of the original wording. Hence, the reason Irenaeus only speaks of the copies may well be due to his geographical location. But if Irenaeus was speaking in absolute terms, then the original draft of the Apocalypse had disappeared. If so, this certainly puts some doubt on Tertullian?s statement about some of the letters of Paul still existing. One other item that may be important here: Revelation was copied less often than any other book of the NT, and yet Irenaeus admits that it was already corrupted?within just a few decades of the writing of the Apocalypse. Scribal corruption is to be expected, of course, but that Irenaeus? best argument is to appeal to early manuscripts rather than to the original?even if he had not seen the original?might suggest that it no longer existed. And if Revelation no longer existed, how much more likely is it that Paul?s letters no longer existed by the middle of the second century?

He's realized that the issue has further reaching affect than they initially considered.

Failed again....

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Irenaeus witnessed a Greek variant in the 2nd century. Early Latin texts contain 616. Its not something new. The "new" early witness in "115" revived the debate and added a early manuscript witness to the collection of evidence.

So, we now have, three mss with 616. As Wallace, himself said, the issue has "fairly benign implications."

You didn't even read the article..... and its more than three mss.

Here, I'll highlight what you missed.

Actually, the verdict is not in on this one yet. I am inclined to the view that the original wording here was 616, but a lot of work is needed to determine this

You might notice the article you linked is rather old. He has written other articles since and done interviews on the subject.

Irenaeus devotes an entire chapter to a discussion of the variant in Rev 13:18 (AH 5.30). He does not speak of the original text, however, but does address the earliest copies that he had seen. He compares the two readings, 616 and 666, and gives the palm to 666. However, since he also gives it a spiritual interpretation, one has to wonder whether his motives clouded his judgment and whether the church, under his spell, began to copy out 666 here instead of 616. Until just a few years ago, the only known manuscript to have 616 in Rev 13:18 was Ephraemi Rescriptus (codex C), a fifth century codex and the second most important manuscript of the Apocalypse. Then, with the discovery of sixteen or seventeen NT papyri at the Ashmolean Museum of Oxford University just a few years ago, confirmation of this reading appeared. The earliest manuscript on Rev 13, now P115 from the third or perhaps fourth century, also has the reading 616. I looked at the papyrus in 2003 while visiting Oxford, examining it under a microscope. Clearly, it had the reading 616 in the original hand?no erasures, no alterations. Nevertheless, back to Irenaeus: It is a curious thing that he doesn?t appeal to the original text of Revelation, which would end all dispute. He only appeals to early copies. Perhaps the reason is simply his distance from the source. By comparing what he says with what Tertullian says, access to the original church(es) seems to have been considered crucial for verification of the original wording. Hence, the reason Irenaeus only speaks of the copies may well be due to his geographical location. But if Irenaeus was speaking in absolute terms, then the original draft of the Apocalypse had disappeared. If so, this certainly puts some doubt on Tertullian?s statement about some of the letters of Paul still existing. One other item that may be important here: Revelation was copied less often than any other book of the NT, and yet Irenaeus admits that it was already corrupted?within just a few decades of the writing of the Apocalypse. Scribal corruption is to be expected, of course, but that Irenaeus? best argument is to appeal to early manuscripts rather than to the original?even if he had not seen the original?might suggest that it no longer existed. And if Revelation no longer existed, how much more likely is it that Paul?s letters no longer existed by the middle of the second century?

He's realized that the issue has further reaching affect than they initially considered.

Failed again....

You're wasting your time.  FSSL has a 66-book Bible where every word is God-breathed.  If FSSL's Bible says 666, then it's 666.  FSSL's Bible puts an end to all arguments.  Just ask him. 

 

[subllibrm]

It's official--Grand Rapids, Michigan (area code 616), is Hell

Actually, Hell is on the other side of the state. And no, I am not talking about Detroit.

 

[FSSL]

He's realized that the issue has further reaching affect than they initially considered.

Failed again....

He notes that the important ramification is in our understanding of the process of copying manuscripts. It was not strictly linear.

He does not speak with the absolute resolve that it must be 616 like you did in the OP.

EVEN IF we find through further research that 616 is right and 666 is wrong. What does it affect? Unless you are into gematria and numerology, it means nothing.

(yes... thank you for the correction... I found it interesting that more mss were found).

 

[FSSL]

Not at all.  Irenaeus is one of the earliest witnesses to mss closest to their origin.  So what he says about the mss is very important.  If he observed that there were problems with the text, then that's an important thing to know.

Just ask Tomato if he believes this now. LOL!!!

 

[FSSL]

Tomato. I read an article on the internet that said Irenaeus was in the line of the popes and he had undue influence. He saw the 616 manuscript and unduly pressed people to accept 666 because he was in the line of apostles so that is why 666 is in our Bibles, today.

 

[prophet]

Ruh roh, I live in the 616 area code! 

I was up in the G-Rap on Thursday.

;D

Earnestly Contend

 

[praise_yeshua]

Tomato. I read an article on the internet that said Irenaeus was in the line of the popes and he had undue influence. He saw the 616 manuscript and unduly pressed people to accept 666 because he was in the line of apostles so that is why 666 is in our Bibles, today.

He certainly argued for apostolic succession. Which is pretty much the reason we do have 666 today. That.... and Jerome's choice.

 

[sword]

Thank you praise_yeshua for bringing up this highly important issue.

As of today I have decided not to get a tattoo of 666 or 616 on my hand or forehead. Just to be safe I will put 616 on my avoid list also.

 

[sword]

I have decided to keep the "FFF" I have tattooed on my right arm since it does not represent 666 or 616.