Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:12:08 -0500
From: James Jordan 
Subject: RE: Belated thoughts RE: (urth) Shadowy reflections on an

At 12:45 PM 4/19/2002, you wrote:

(A numerological reflection relevant also to 5HC: "666," the Number of the
>Beast, is "the number of a man." Kaballistically, 6 is a man and 3 is
>God; 666 is Man making a God of himself.)

         Don't know what Wolfe thought about this, if anything, but FWIW 
for those interested:
         In Rev. 13 the number is six hundred, sixty, six, not three 6s. A 
lot of people are confused on this, simply because we say "sixsixsix" and 
the English could be read either way. The number has to do with rulers who 
turn against God, and comes from Solomon's defection from God in 1 Kings 
10:14, where it signals Solomon's breaking the "three laws of kingship" 
(Deuteronomy 17:16-17; 1 Kings 10:14ff., 26ff., and 11:1ff.).
         "The number of a man" also trips up English readers, and many 
others. In Greek, "aner" means a specific male person, and "anthropos" a 
member of humankind. The word here is "anthropos." So, contrary to many 
attempt to make 666 out to be a numerical code for Nero or someone else 
whose name gematrically adds up to 666, it really only says, "a human 
number." Beyond that, it depends on how you take Revelation. I take it as 
describing, down to chapter 20, the fall of Jerusalem and of Rome. In 
Revelation, gentiles are called "peoples, nations, tribes, and tongues," 
while Jews are called "men, anthropoi." Thus, IMO, when Rev. 13 says, IMO, 
is that the number is an "anthropic" number, it means a "Jewish" number, 
and again points back to Solomon. The two evil beast powers (Sea and Land) 
are like Solomon: rulers who turn against God and oppress the people.
         More than most wanted to know, I'm sure, but I thought a few might 
like to see it.
         Beyond that: I unfairly wrote:

 > Hence I don't think Wolfe is being "deceptive" when he says Severian is 
not a Christ-figure.

And you answered:

>H'mmm. Did I say deceptive? (Checks mail archive.) No, I didn't.

         My apologies. Did not intend to overstate your case. I wasn't 
really thinking of your particular sentence when I wrote that, and the 
quotation marks were not intended as a citation from you but just as a way 
of generalizing the opinion.
         Enjoyed your post muchly.

>--Blattid/Dan'l

Nutria/Jim


--