This article explores one element of the history of interpretation for the number of the beast in Revelation 13:18. Although most manuscripts have accepted 666 as the number written by John the Seer, the number 616 was in circulation as a variant by at least the late second century. Irenaeus of Lyons knew the variant and insisted that 666 was the reading accepted by the best manuscripts of the day. In the last decade, Craig Koester has utilized Irenaeus’s comments in his analysis of the history of interpretation, consideration of what the earliest number might be, and reflection on how the number came into existence. This article engages with the last point, namely, Koester’s use of Irenaeus as a way to think about how 616 entered into the textual tradition of Revelation.
Koester understands Ireneaus’s claim that some of his second-century opponents wrongly interpreted the number as 616 to provide evidence that at least some in the second century found 616 to be the easier of the two readings. 666 would thus be the lectio difficilior. By engaging other interpretations of 616 evident in late antiquity, this article casts doubt on such an interpretation. Tyconius of Carthage employs visual exegesis to interpret a numerical abbreviation of 616 as a pictogram for the antichrist. The fifth-century Liber genealogus utilizes gematria, but the calculations in the Liber involve a step of multiplication that is unlikely to have been known to Irenaeus. While these two readings do not rule out the possibility that some second-century interpreters found 616 to be easier to interpret, they cast doubt on the likelihood that Irenaeus knew the methodologies found therein.
A better interpretation of Irenaeus’s words recognizes the polemical nature of Irenaeus’s Adversus Haereses. The requirements of polemic in the Second Sophistic do not necessitate a positive evaluation of one’s opponents’ motives. In addition, Irenaeus makes another claim for how 616 may have entered the textual tradition that is too often overlooked by interpreters, namely, that a scribal error in the middle term of the numerical abbreviation may be to blame for the discrepancy between 666 and 616. While Irenaeus asserts that 666 is earlier reading — something that remains disputed — this exploration of the history of interpretation maintains the plausibility of Irenaeus’s text-critical suggestion while also demonstrating the value of careful attention to the interpretive history of a text when considering how variants came into existence.