Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:47:20.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Solomon and 666 (Revelation 13.18)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2020

Keith Bodner  and
Brent A. Strawn Open the ORCID record for Brent A. Strawn [Opens in a new window]
Keith Bodner
Affiliation:
Department of Biblical and Religious Studies, Crandall University, 333 Gorge Rd. Moncton, NB, E1 G 3H9, Canada. Email: [email protected]
Brent A. Strawn
Affiliation:
The Divinity School, Duke University, 407 Chapel Drive, Durham, NC27708, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present article argues that 666 in Rev 13.18 is best related to the notice of Solomon receiving 666 talents of gold (1 Kgs 10.14 // 2 Chr 9.13), which is, in turn, an important notice of this king's wayward and unjust practices: his inordinate wealth, exploitation of his own people and eschewing of God's law.

Keywords

666mark of the BeastSolomon
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 299 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Thanks to Greg Carey for comments on an earlier draft and to the anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback.

References

1 Charles, R. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John: With Introduction, Notes, and Indices, also the Greek Text and English Translation (2 vols.; International Critical Commentary; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920) i.367 n. 1Google Scholar.

2 The variant 616 (εξακοσιαι δεκα εξ [χις’]) is well known (115, C, Irmss). Also attested is 665 (εξακοσια εξηκοντα πεντε, 2344). See the apparatus in NA28 (p. 765). The reading favoured in the text of NA28 is found in A (χξς’ 47 046, 051, 1611, 2329, 2377 ); Ir Hipp (NA28 p. 765). For further discussion and explanation of the different grammatical forms of εξακοσιoι that are attested, see Aune, D. E., Revelation 6–16 (WBC 52B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998) 722Google Scholar. More generally, see Smyth, H. W., Greek Grammar (rev. edn; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959) 102–6Google Scholar (§§347–54). For recent studies, see Kirchmayr, K., ‘Das sexagesimale System als Schlüssel zu Zahlen in der Offenbarung des Johannes’, SNTU 35 (2010) 35–50Google Scholar; P. J. Williams, ‘115 and the Number of the Beast’, TynBul 58 (2007) 151–3; and Kirchmayr, K., ‘Die Bedeutung von 666 und 616 (Offb 13, 18)’, Bib 95 (2014) 424–7Google Scholar.

3 In Against Heresies 5.30, Irenaeus offers Euanthas, Lateinos and Teitan as possibilities. See Aune, Revelation 6–16, 770; Mounce, R. H., The Book of Revelation (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 264Google Scholar; Charles, Revelation, i.364; and esp. Kovacs, J. and Rowland, C., Revelation: The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004) 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘According to Irenaeus, the number indicates that the Beast sums up and concentrates in himself all the apostasy that has taken place in the 6,000 years of the world's history (AH v.28.2). The three 6's also demonstrate that he will recapitulate Nebuchadnezzar, whose statue had a height of 60 cubits and a breadth of six cubits, and also the 600 years of Noah, when the flood came as a punishment for apostasy (AH v.29.2). The 6's stand for “the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end” (AH v.30.1, ANF i.558).’

4 In addition to the literature already cited, see Bauckham, R., The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993) 384–407Google Scholar for discussion and a selection of options. Cf. Osborne, G. R., Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002) 363Google Scholar: ‘Perhaps no verse in the Bible has received more prolonged speculation than 13:18. The number of the Beast down through the centuries has been linked with literally hundreds of different possibilities. On the whole, John's opening observation, Ὧδε ἡ σοϕία ἐστίν (hōde hē sophia estin, this demands wisdom) has been totally ignored in the heedless rush to link 666 with all kinds of strange and wonderful suggestions.’ Similarly Mounce, Revelation, 264, who concludes that John ‘intended only his intimate associates to be able to decipher the number. So successful were his precautions that even Irenaeus some one hundred years later was unable to identify the person intended. An additional 1800 years of conjecture have not brought us any closer to an answer.’ For Irenaeus, see the previous note.

5 The other option, entertained by some, is that the number would be somehow non-human (supernatural?). See Charles, Revelation, i.364–5 for earlier scholars who held to such a perspective. ‘But’, Mounce writes, ‘exactly what a nonhuman number would be or why it should enter this context is not at all clear’ (Revelation, 264). Charles, too, finds ‘the emphasizing of the fact here that the number is such as a man uses is pointless. For the writer to set down any other than an intelligible number would be highly absurd’ (Revelation, i.365). Beale, G. K., The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 24Google Scholar claims that ‘the other numbers in Revelation are probably used figuratively without specific reference to one historical reality at one particular point in history. The word ἀριθμός (“number”) is elsewhere always used figuratively for an uncountable multitude’ (see further, and similarly, ibid., 721–2). Mattes, W., ‘Die Chiffre 666 der Apokalypse (13, 18)’, Hermes 139 (2011) 365–75Google Scholar thinks the number is related to Greek ‘thesis-counting’, with the numerical sum of Nero's name (72) a sign of his hubris; 666 is then the total number of Nero's seven names (Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus). See M. Oberweis, ‘Die Bedeutung der neutestamentlichen “Rätselzahlen” 666 (Apk 13 18) und 153 (Joh 21 11)’, ZNW 77 (1986) 226–42, for an argument that the number 616 is a meant to be a transcription (tryw) of Greek θηρίου; see also Roloff, J., The Revelation of John: A Continental Commentary (CC; trans. E., J. Alsup; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 166Google Scholar.

6 But cf. נרון קסר in Mur xviii, i (DJD ii.101). See C. R. Koester, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 38A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014) 597–8 for this and additional evidence for the spelling of קסר.

7 See Charles, Revelation, i.367; Aune, Revelation 6–16, 770–1. Witherington, B. III, Revelation (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) 177CrossRefGoogle Scholar points out that ‘Nero Caesar’ may also explain the variant 616, ‘because, if the Latin of Nero rather than the Greek form (Neron) is transliterated into Hebrew, the numerical value of the name becomes 616’ (similarly Charles, Revelation, i.367). But see Mounce, Revelation, 264 n. 60, who thinks that ‘616 is better accounted for as a deliberate attempt to identify the Beast with Caligula’, whose name totals 616 in Greek. Mounce also finds the defective Hebrew writing of a Greek form of a Latin word to be a complicated situation and thus unlikely (ibid., 264–5). Witherington's reply (Revelation, 185 n. 306: ‘The objection of R. H. Mounce … cannot stand because this same defective spelling has been found at Qumran’) is only slightly helpful and hardly definitive. Moreover, Mounce himself notes this evidence (Revelation, 264 n. 81; see also Charles, Revelation, i.367). For more discussion, see Beale, Revelation, 24, 718–21, who deems the use of a Hebrew system of gematria unlikely. Contrast Aune, Revelation 6–16, 771–3; Koester, Revelation, 538–40, 596–9, 605–6; and Roloff, Revelation, 165–7, among others, who are quite certain that gematria is being used. More generally, note Beale, Revelation, 721: ‘the large number of conflicting solutions argues against a literal calculation method as ever yielding the right interpretation’. Beale favours an approach that sees the numbers as having ‘figurative significance’ or symbolising ‘some spiritual reality’ without ever involving ‘any kind of literal gematria calculation (e.g. twenty-four elders, seven seals, the 144,000, three and a half years, two witnesses, seven heads, ten horns)’ (ibid.). Whatever the case, it should be noted that these figures are often derived from the Old Testament in some way. For yet another, but not totally unrelated, perspective, note Kirchmayr, ‘Das sexagesimale System’, who thinks that 666 designates the number seventeen and means ‘Antigod’.

8 Mounce, Revelation, 265. Both Koester, Revelation, 540 and Kistemaker, Simon J., Revelation (NTC; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001) 395Google Scholar point out that Nero is not suggested as an option until the 1830s. But cf. Koester, Revelation, 535 on Victorinus (d. 304), who noted similar traits between the Beast and Nero; and see further Gumerlock, F. X., ‘Nero Antichrist: Patristic Evidence for the Use of Nero's Naming in Calculating the Number of the Beast (Rev 13:18)’, WTJ 68 (2006) 347–60Google Scholar, who believes that evidence for an identification with Nero exists already in the fifth-century North African text Liber genealogus. On an exclusive identification with Nero, note the caution of Mangina, J. L., Revelation (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible; Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010) 167Google Scholar: ‘But why should we identify the beast with a character from the mid-first century? John's vision is of a coming terror, not a figure from the past.’

9 Contra Witherington, Revelation, 177: ‘It is the enumeration of a name.’ Cf. ibid., 185: ‘The mark is said to be the name of the Beast or rather the number of his name.’

10 Mounce, Revelation, 265. For symbolic sense, see also Valdez, A., ‘El número 666 y las Doce Tribus de Israel’, RevistB 68 (2006) 191–214Google Scholar; Olivares, C., ‘Elementos para descifrar el 666: una propuesta’, DavarLogos 8 (2009) 31–58Google Scholar; and, much earlier, Farrer, A., The Revelation of St. John the Divine: Commentary on the English Text (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964) 158Google Scholar, who favours a ‘punning’ use of the number over a ‘cryptogram use’. For an intriguing cryptographic analysis, see Charles, Revelation, i.365–7 (quoting J. A. Smith viva voce).

11 See, inter alia, Beale, G. K. and McDonough, S. M., ‘Revelation’, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. Beale, G. K. and Carson, D. A.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) 1081–1161Google Scholar, and the literature cited there.

12 Note e.g. that NA28 does not provide any allusions to the Old Testament (or allusions of any sort) in the margins to Rev 13.18, only cross references to Rev 15.2 and 17.9.

13 Beale, Revelation, 727, with reference to A. Farrer, A Rebirth of Images: The Making of John's Apocalypse (Boston: Beacon, 1968 [1949]) 256–7. Beale also draws attention to Nebuchadnezzar's image of gold in Dan 3.1: ‘whose height was sixty cubits and its breadth six cubits’ (cf. Irenaeus in n. 3 above).

14 Farrer, Rebirth, 251, 256.

15 Ibid., 256–7.

16 The only difference is that 2 Chr 9.13 uses a plural construct form of ‘talent’: ככרי זהב for 1 Kings’ singular ככר זהב.

17 According to Brooke, A. E., McLean, N. and Thackeray, H. St. J., The Old Testament in Greek, vol. ii: The Later Historical Books (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935) 245Google Scholar, one MS (a2) reads εξακοσιαι and quite a few (Abdipxc2e2) omit the και before εξηκοντα with three ( = Armenian, Ethiopic and Syro-hexaplar), adding και before εξ in 2 Kgs (3 Kgdm) 10.14. Similarly, in LXX 2 Chr 9.13, a few MSS (abe2) read και before εξ (ibid., 494). Such variations are minor and indicate that not much is at stake in slight variations of spelling or in the presence or absence of the conjunction.

18 666 does occur once more, in Ezra 2.13, which tallies the sons of Adonikam (אדניקם = Αδωνικαμ) as 666 (שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֺת שִׁשִּּׁים וְשִׁשָׁה= ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ) in number. In very late post-biblical literature the number 666 is also found in the Treatise of the Vessels (Massekhet Kelim), the date and provenance of which are highly uncertain, but which ‘must have been composed sometime between late antiquity and the seventeenth century’ ce according to J. R. Davila, ‘The Treatise of the Vessels (Massekhet Kelim): A New Translation and Introduction’, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. i (ed. R. Bauckham, J. R. Davila and A. Panayotov; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013) 393–409, at 396–7. The pertinent passage (vii) is as follows (ibid., 406–7): ‘The fine stones and pearls and silver and gold that King David set aside for the great House were a thousand thousand talents of silver and a hundred thousand talents of gold. And (there were) the trees of the gold of Parvaim which used to produce fruit of six hundred and sixty-six myriad talents of fine gold that was underneath the Tree of Life in the Holy Garden. All these were revealed to Hilkiah the scribe, and he transmitted them to Shamshiel the angel, who shall keep them until the King, David, shall arise, and he shall transmit into his hand the silver and the gold, with the gold that Solomon volunteered, and with them talents of gold and fine stones that are without price. All these were hidden and made secret and kept from before the army of the Chaldeans in the place that is called Borsif.’

19 See Hays, R. B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), esp. 1–33Google Scholar; idem, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), esp. 1–14; and idem, Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), esp. 1–16. See also JTI 11/1 (Spring 2017), an issue devoted to Hays’ work on the Gospels, esp. the guest editorial by C. K. Rowe, ‘Learning from Echoes ii: Richard B. Hays on Scripture in the Gospels’, JTI 11/1 (2017) 1–3, and Hays’ response to the essays: Hays, R. B., ‘Continuing to Read Scripture with the Evangelists: A Response’, JTI 11/1 (2017) 85–99Google Scholar.

20 See, inter alia, the discussion in Nam, R. S., Portrayals of Economic Exchange in the Book of Kings (BIS 112; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 137–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who rightly notes the editorial change in 2 Chr 2.16 vis-à-vis 2 Kgs 5.27 that ‘reflects the need to preserve the Chronicle[r]’s vision for a nostalgic Solomon portrayed during Persian times, rather than one who oppresses the Israelites’ (137).

21 2 Kgs 9.20–4 is often cited as evidence that the Israelites are not turned into slaves at this point, but for the complexities of the matter see Jobling, D., ‘“Forced Labor”: Solomon's Golden Age and the Question of Literary Representation’, Semeia 54 (1992) 57–76Google Scholar, esp. 62. One might also note the prominent role of corvée labour attributed to Nabonidus compared to the relief programme recounted in the propagandistic Cyrus cylinder (see Oppenheim, A. L., ‘Cyrus’, The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (ed. Pritchard, J. B., new edn with a foreword by Fleming, D. E. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011) 282–4)Google Scholar. Finally, note W. Brueggemann, Money and Possessions (Interpretation; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2016) 66: ‘If … we read the Solomon narrative with any sense of irony, we may recognize that the “innocence” and “wisdom” of Solomon are presented so that the reader may come to see that he is in fact reckoned not as innocent or as virtuous, but as an eager accumulator of wealth with an endless, covetous desire for more.’ Brueggemann goes on to note that ‘everything is of gold; Solomon is the Midas of ancient Israel!’ (ibid.). See further ibid., 68–9 on Solomon's taxation, use of forced labour, and Brueggemann's summation: Solomon's ‘heart was turned away from the neighborly covenant; life was reduced to the pursuit and accumulation of commodities at the expense of vulnerable neighbors’. For a more extended treatment, see Brueggemann, W., Solomon: Israel's Ironic Icon of Human Achievement (Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament; Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2005), esp. 124–38Google Scholar. A speculation: given the contrast, in Revelation, between 666 and the 144,000, might the latter somehow evoke mistreated Israelites, if the former evokes Solomon?

22 See McConville, J. G., God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political Theology: Genesis-Kings (LHBOTS 454; London: T&T Clark, 2006) 152–3Google Scholar.

23 See Sweeney, M. A., ‘The Critique of Solomon in the Josianic Edition of the Deuteronomistic History’, JBL 114 (1995) 607–22Google Scholar and Walsh, J. T., ‘The Characterization of Solomon in 1 Kings 1–5’, CBQ 57 (1995) 471–93Google Scholar. As pointed out by one of the anonymous reviewers of this article (who has our thanks), there could be connections here between Solomon's sexual excess and the ‘whoredom’ of Babylon (see Revelation 17; cf. 19.2).

24 Considerations such as these demonstrate that connections made by scholars like Beale and McDonough (‘Revelation’, 1130) between Daniel and Revelation may also hold true for Solomon – namely, the presence of difficult times ‘brought about by an evil king who persecutes the saints … [and who] deceives others into acknowledging his purported sovereignty, and convinces them to spread the deception’ – even if the latter formulation may be a bit too strong for 1 Kings. For the place of money in Revelation 13, see Taylor, D. Furlan, ‘The Monetary Crisis in Revelation 13:17 and the Provenance of the Book of Revelation’, CBQ 71 (2009) 580–96Google Scholar.

25 Of course, the veracity of such insider reports about outsider religious practice has been doubted. For discussion, see, inter alia, Green, A. R. W., The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (ASORDS 1; Missoula: Scholars, 1975)Google Scholar; Day, J., Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (UCOP 41; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; idem, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTSup 265; London: Sheffield Academic, 2000) 209–16; and K. Finsterbusch et al., eds., Human Sacrifice in the Jewish and Christian Tradition (Numen 112; Leiden: Brill, 2007).

26 Cf. Koester, Revelation, 605–6 on the three steps of gematria: (1) discern the person's traits from the context; (2) think of a specific person who fits those traits; and (3) see if that person's name fits the number. He continues: ‘In Revelation … the context provides help’ with this tricky endeavour and so ‘[r]eaders using gematria to solve John's riddle must first look at the portrait of the beast. They are to think of a beast that wears diadems and wields authority over the world, that speaks blasphemy and persecutes the faithful’ (606). For more on empire in Revelation, see e.g. Fiorenza, E. S., Revelation: Vision of a Just World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 86–97Google Scholar; Bauckham, R., The Theology of the Book of Revelation (NTT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 35–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carey, G., ‘Finding Happiness in Apocalyptic Literature’, The Bible and the Pursuit of Happiness: What the Old and New Testaments Teach Us about the Good Life (ed. Strawn, B. A.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 203–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 217–19; and the essays in Int 63.1 (January 2009), an issue devoted to ‘Revelation as a Critique of Empire’. Note also Brueggemann, Money and Possessions, 265–79, on the inhumane and destructive economic activities of the empire in Revelation, such that the polemic of the book ‘is against wealth that is situated in the autonomy, self-sufficiency, and arrogance of Rome’ (278).

27 For this motif, see further and more extensively the following works: Fisher, L. R., ‘Can This Be the Son of David?’, Jesus and the Historian (ed. Trotter, F. T.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) 82–97Google Scholar; Duling, D. C., ‘Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David’, HTR 68 (1975) 235–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew's Christological Apologetic’, NTS 24 (1977–8) 392–410; G. H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (WUNT ii/54; Tübingen: Mohr, 1993) 18–19; Charlesworth, J. H., ‘Solomon and Jesus: The Son of David in Ante-Markan Traditions (Mark 10:47)’, Biblical and Humane (ed. Elder, L. B. et al. ; Atlanta: Scholars, 1996) 125–51Google Scholar; Torijano, P. A., Solomon the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition (JSJSup 73; Leiden: Brill, 2002)Google Scholar; L. Novakovic, Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David (WUNT ii/170; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 97–103; and J. Dvořáček, The Son of David in Matthew's Gospel in the Light of the Solomon as Exorcist Tradition (WUNT ii/415; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016) 33–63. Note also Busch, P., ‘Solomon as a True Exorcist: The Testament of Solomon in its Cultural Setting’, The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect (ed. Verheyden, J.; TBNJCT 16; Leiden: Brill, 2013) 183–95Google Scholar; and R. D. Miller, ‘Solomon the Trickster’, BibInt 19 (2011) 496–504, who writes (502): ‘Solomon, too, becomes best known in post-biblical tradition as one magically powerful. This tradition is well-known in the Quran, but is explicit as early as the Sefer HaRazim (ca. ad 400). Even in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Solomon possesses his famous magic ring (11QPsApa 1:1–6), the purpose of which is originally exorcistic (cf. Josephus Ant., 8; Testament of Solomon, ca. ad 350; Questions of Bartholomew 4:21, 2nd–5th century ad). Wisdom 7:21 describes Solomon as possessing “hidden wisdom.” Although much in this book is traditionally sapiential, defining wisdom as in Proverbs or Sirach, in Wisd 7:15–22, Wisdom is almost magical. Solomon has “sure knowledge” of “the powers of spirits” (v 20) and the “actions of the elements” (v 17), Gk. στοιχεία, a term taken from Hellenistic magical texts.’

For more on 11Q11, ‘an exorcisory ritual…probably ascribing to David and Solomon the usage of divine names against the demons’, see Michael Mach, ‘Demons’, EDSS 1:189–92, esp. 191; and Émile Puech, ‘11QPsApa: Un ritual d'exorcismes: Essai de reconstruction’, RevQ 14/15 (1990): 377–408.

28 Translation from D. C. Duling in OTP i.960.

29 E.g., various Aramaic incantation bowls and, most famously, Josephus, Ant. 8.2.5. See also the works cited in n. 27 above, esp. the thorough reviews found in Novakovic, Messiah and Dvořáček, The Son of David.

30 See e.g. R. B. Wright in OTP ii.639–70; Brock, S. P., ‘The Psalms of Solomon’, The Apocryphal Old Testament (ed. Sparks, H. F. D.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1984) 649–82Google Scholar, at 651; and G. B. Gray, ‘The Psalms of Solomon’, APOT ii.625–52, at 627–30.

31 See J. H. Charlesworth in OTP ii.725–71 and J. A. Emerton, ‘The Odes of Solomon’, The Apocryphal Old Testament, 686.

32 See D. C. Duling in OTP i.935–87 and M. Whittaker, ‘The Testament of Solomon’, The Apocryphal Old Testament, 735. Cf. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 18: ‘The writer seems to be so familiar with, and reliant upon the New Testament that it is most probable that the Testament of Solomon was written by a Jewish Christian depending on various traditions including the New Testament.’ See also ibid., 19: ‘Scholarly opinion has followed McCown who argued that the Testament of Solomon should be dated in the early third century ad, yet incorporating first century material. Thus the Testament of Solomon is an important witness primarily to exorcism in a part of the post-Apostolic Church with reflections of earlier times.’ More recently, see Klutz, T. E., Rewriting the Testament of Solomon: Tradition, Conflict and Identity in a Late Antique Pseudepigraphon (LSTS 52; London: T&T Clark, 2006)Google Scholar.

33 Additionally, the association with Solomon is, in at least some of these cases, altogether unclear. See e.g. Emerton, ‘The Odes of Solomon’, 684–5; S. Holmes, ‘Wisdom of Solomon’, APOT i.518–19, 525.

34 Beale and McDonough, ‘Revelation’, 1130. Similarly Beale, Revelation, 24, 720, 723, 726.

35 This explains why Solomon's 666 could activate negatively in the Apocalypse, but other parts of the Solomon tradition could function positively in other Second Temple literature. It also explains why the connections with Solomon are not exhaustive or otherwise comprehensive. The Beast makes war on the saints and is known for military prowess; it corrupts worship and receives worship; it is an outsider, not an insider – these qualities do not all (nor easily) ‘map’ onto Solomon, though some do. A connection with Solomon also does not obviate connections between the Beast and the material in Daniel 7 (or other texts). Perhaps one might say, especially via metalepsis, that the Beast's description in Revelation activates a great host of texts and traditions, with 666 a detail that is especially resonant with Solomon. It remains possible, too, that Revelation might be targeting a specific human ruler (like Nero) while nevertheless still activating a wide range of pre-existing material. Compare, analogously, the argument by D. T. Stewart, ‘Leviticus 19 as Mini-Torah’, Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond (ed. R. Gane and A. Taggar-Cohen; RBS 82; Atlanta: SBL, 2015) 299–323. (We thank Greg Carey for discussions on this point.)

36 Beale and McDonough, ‘Revelation’, 1130.

37 See, inter alia, Mounce, Revelation, 26: ‘The reference is undoubtedly to some definite historical person’; and Charles, Revelation, i.365–6: ‘the name of the man … is for the time the name of the Beast. This conclusion is of paramount importance in the interpretation of the verse as a whole … The Beast and the man are identical. In other words, the Beast is for the time incarnated in a man.’ See further ibid., i.365 n. 1.

38 Beale and McDonough, ‘Revelation’, 1131 (emphasis added); similarly Beale, Revelation, 726.

39 To borrow from Thompson, M. M., ‘Hearing Voices: Reading the Gospels in the Echo Chamber of Scripture’, JTI 11 (2017) 37–48Google Scholar.

40 According to Farrer ‘“Here is wisdom” should mean “This is where wisdom comes in”’ (Revelation of St. John the Divine, 157). Cf. Rev 17.9; also SibOr 1.137–46, esp. 1.137, 141 and 145–146. For Koester, Revelation, 606, ‘[t]hose who succeed in doing the calculation join the community of those who have wisdom (13:18), which in this context means discerning the Nero-like qualities of the ruling power’ – or, perhaps better, the Solomon-like qualities.

41 Charles, Revelation, i.364.

42 Witherington, Revelation, 179.

43 To borrow from the subtitle of Walter Brueggemann's Solomon: Israel's Ironic Icon of Human Achievement.