The Greek New Testament, as we know it today, has approximately one hundred thirty-eight thousand words. There are thousands upon thousands of textual variants. A textual variant is any place among the manuscripts of the New Testament where there is not uniformity of wording. The best estimate is that there are between three hundred thousand and four hundred thousand textual variants among the manuscripts. The category of textual variants involves those that are both meaningful and viable. Less than 1 percent of all textual variants belong to this group.
But even saying this may be misleading. By “meaningful,” we mean that the variant changes the meaning of the text to some degree. It may not be terribly significant, but if the reading impacts our understanding of the passage, then it is meaningful.
A few years ago, a scrap of papyrus was found at Oxford University’s Ashmolean Museum. It gave the beast’s number as 616. And it just happens to be the oldest manuscript of Revelation 13 now extant. This was just the second manuscript to do so. (This manuscript, not quite so early, is a very important witness to the text of the Apocalypse and is known as Codex Ephraimi Rescriptus.) Most scholars think 666 is the number of the beast and 616 is the neighbor of the beast. We shall turn now to look at the external evidence for the textual variants that shakes up the conspiracy theories about the number of the beast.
Textual variants of Revelation 13:18 that leads textual problems of this readings were recorded in TR WH as well as with NU. Philip Comfort on his New Testament Text and Translation Commentary recorded the variants and also examined the readings of the ancient New Testament manuscripts:
TR WH NU
ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ [=χ̅ξ̅ϛ̅]
“666” P47 (ℵ) A P Maj Irenaeus Hippolytus
Variant 1
ἑξακόσιοι δεκα ἕξ [=χ̅ι ̅ϛ̅]
“616”
P115 C ( 5 11 - no longer extant) MSS(according to Irenaeus)
Variant 2
ἑξακόσια ἑξήκοντα πεντε [=χ̅ξ̅ε]
“665”
2344
With the results achieved by weighing the external evidence for variant readings in terms of support from individual manuscripts or families of manuscripts and local texts, Most scholars think 666 is the number of the beast. The method that was used to determined this original number that penned by Paul was eclecticism. It is an approach to textual criticism that relies exclusively on collection of the best readings from each manuscripts and other witnesses to the Greek text. Phillip Comfort basis his statements on an thorough investigations of the best manuscripts that we have today. Comfort’s is laudable here. He certainly correct to note that writing in the late second century, Irenaeus (Haer. 5.30) was aware of the reading “616” but denounced it as “heretical and deceptive.” He claimed that “666” was found in “all the good and ancient copies” and was “attested to by those who had seen John face to face.” Three significant witnesses (P47 ℵ A) must have their roots in those “good and ancient copies” because they read “666.” However, the recently published P115 reads “616,” as does Codex C. These are among the “good and ancient copies,” and the number they contain, “616,” is not heretical. Either “666” or “616” could be original inasmuch as both symbolize “Caesar Nero.” In ancient times the let ters of the Hebrew and Greek alphabets were used as numerals. The “number” of a name is the sum of its individual letters.
There are actually two ancient manuscripts that support the “616, P115 and C. We have seen that “666” was rooted in all good ancient manuscripts and not one English translation prints “616” in the text. Moreover, Zachary Cole suggest that 666/616 is another numerus sacer concerns the so-called number of the beast in Rev 13:18. There is, to be sure, a wealth of scholarly literature on this particular number, but here I summarize the relevant information. In the Seer’s prophetic vision of the Beast who would come to deceive the earth, he exhorts the reader: ὁ ἔχων νοῦν ψηφιϲάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου (“Let anyone with un-derstanding calculate the number of the beast.”). The verb ψηφιϲάτω occurs in other texts when referring specifically to isopsephistic calculation. The Elder goes on: ἀριθμὸϲ γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐϲτίν, καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸϲ αὐτοῦ ἑξακόϲιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ (“For it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six.”).
This is another instance where scholars propose that the ancient practice of gematria must be involved. Some hold that the Beast is “Nero Caesar,” be-cause, when transliterated into Hebrew as ,נרון קסרthe added total is 666: + ר 50) .))002( + ס )06( + ק )001( + ן )05( + ו )6( + ר )002( + נA strength of this view is that it seems to account for the early variant reading 616 (as in P115 and C 04), which one reaches by simply removing the fi nal nun from the name Nero (666–50 = 616). The validity of this particular solution, however, is not the present concern. In two early papyri of Revelation, this number appears in symbol form: χ̅ξ̅ϛ̅ “666” in P47 and χ̅ι ̅ϛ̅ “616” in P115 (Rev 13:18).49 There are no indications, in either case, that the copyists regarded the numeral as unique. Both papyri contain dozens of abbreviated number forms and it is not clear how this one in particular functioned differently. True, abbreviated forms lend themselves more readily to isopsephistic calculations as shown above, but this tendency still would not require one to view these numerals as theologically-motivated abbreviations. Moreover, the majuscule manuscripts from this period (ℵ 01, A 02, C 04) consistently give the number in longhand form. A recent suggestion about this number, however, might qualify it as a numerus sacer.
One scholar proposes that the variant value 616 originated as an in-tentional change aimed at mimicking the visual form of the name Jesus Christ. Specifically, Peter Williams observes that the numerical form of 616, which in P115 is χ̅ι ̅ϛ̅, bears an eerily similar visual resemblance to the contracted forms of Christ and Jesus, which are χ̅ϲ ̅ and ι ̅ϲ ̅ , respectively. This suggestion is possible only because, in P115 (and in P47), the letter stigma/digamma (ϛ) is identical to the lunate sigma (ϲ), resulting in the following appearance of the numeral: χ̅ι ̅ ϲ ̅ . Unfortunately, no such nomina sacra are visible in the papyrus, and so one cannot confirm that the scribe used the forms χ̅ϲ ̅ (χριϲτόϲ) and ι ̅ϲ ̅ (Ἰηϲοῦϲ) as opposed to their longer counterparts χ̅ρ ̅ϲ ̅ and ι ̅η ̅ϲ ̅ :
Nevertheless, even if longer forms were used elsewhere in the manuscript, readers would probably have been struck by the visual resemblance of the number to common designations of Jesus. We must therefore consider whether the number as written in P115 could be a deliberate mimicking of the appearance of these nomina sacra.
Elsewhere, there seems to have been the opposite tendency, namely, to alter names away from resembling Jesus. For example, although the external evi-dence is slim, the earliest reading in Matt 27:16–17 seems to be that the full name of Barabbas the “notorious prisoner” was “Jesus Barabbas” (Ἰηϲοῦν Βαραββᾶν). Even though this is the more likely wording, most known Greek witnesses lack the fi rst name Ἰηϲοῦν, however, which probably shows the desire to disassociate the two; as Origen maintained: “in the whole range of scriptures we know that no one who is a sinner [is called] Jesus.” On the other hand, perhaps a transcriber changed χ̅ξ̅ϛ̅ to χ̅ι ̅ϛ̅ in order to draw a stronger contrast between the characters of the Beast and Jesus. Scholars observe that the description of the Beast seems to be an intentionally ironic parody of the Lamb (cf. 5:6), a literary device that speaks to the counterfeit nature of the Beast. A change to χ̅ι ̅ϛ̅ might then serve to draw a closer connection (through visual similarity) between the Beast and the Lamb, which only further highlights their stark comparison. In any case, on account of the high frequency of numerical abbreviations elsewhere in P47 and P115, there is not much that suggests either χ̅ξ̅ϛ̅ or χ̅ι ̅ϛ̅ functioned as numeri sacri.
Conclusion:
We have seen that the available evidences suggests that the original reading or the number of the best that must be render in Revelation 13:18 is “666”. The copyists of the manuscripts that support the “666” are the authentic for it regarded by several scholars as rooted in a good ancient copies of autographic text of John and have been produced by “orthodox” scribes. Because when it comes to Textual Criticism, scholarly consensus is important but it’s not a law. Daniel Wallace is even more precise, admitting that this textual variant does not change any cardinal belief of Christians—”We believe in the deity of Christ, we believe in the virgin birth of Christ, we believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, and we believe that the number of the beast is 666." Noncentral beliefs or practices seem to be affected by this textual problem of Revelation 13:18.
For further readings see:
See Zachary J. Cole, Numerals in Early Greek New Testament Manuscripts Text-Critical, Scribal, and Theological Studies(Brill, 2017), pg. 192-194
Peter J. Williams, “P115 and the Number of the Beast,” TynBul 58 (2007): 151–53 (153).
G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, nigtc (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 707.
Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary(Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008), pg. 846
About the Author: Emmanuel Vincent is one if the resident researcher and blogger of The Master's Bible Institute. His research interest includes textual criticism, biblical languages and church history.
