Before Jerusalem Fell

208 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
aware who he is.”G8 Although he admits there were many names
being suggested (5:30:3), he only cites three. Obviously he left out
the ones he personally felt least credible – perhaps even on (misguided)
theological grounds.
Mtising tlz Point
The second objection – that seeking a definite, historical individual
misses John’s point – is widely held. Yet this objection itself
seems to miss a vital point, and runs into more difficulties than it
solves.
In the first place – and this is the really critical deficiency of the
objection — this view denies what John expressly afilrms. It is quite
clear that John carefully cues the reader to the fact that the number
is the number “of a man.” Had John not given the cue as he did, the
wholly symbolic approach would be on an equal footing with the
cryptogrammic approach.
Second, turning back to ecclesiastical tradition, as the late date
advocates are wont to do, we must ask about Irenaeus’s (and others)
attempts to specifj a name for the Beast. There was a diligent effort
to do so. It seemed obvious to the early Church that a specific name
was involved. And what of the reference in Revelation 13:17 to “the
number of the name (ZOO dv6~cr~og)”? A specific name (hence, the
definite article ZOU) is clearly expected in the text.
Furthermore, why do the symbolic requirements demand three
sixes, as in 666? With the common number seven so current in
Revelation, why was not the number of the Beast, if wholly symbolic,
simply a lone 6? Or why not 66? Or 6666? And if wholly symbolic,
how could the number have been corrupted to 616 before Irenaeus’s
time? Such a corruption would destroy the symbolic function, and
that extremely early in its history.
Third, how is it that settling upon Nero’s name as a specific
individual destroys the symbolism? Could not the name be both a
cryptogram and a symbol, by God’s providence? In Sibylline Oracles
1:328-329 Jesus’ name is signified by 888. This definitely specifies an
individual, while at the same time serving a symbolic function. It is
quite ironic that while seeking to establish the pure-symbolic designation
of 666, Morris points out that: “If we take the sum of the values
68. Ibid. 5:30:3.