Avidius Cassius and the Number of the Beast

[Secret Alias]

It is well known that 666 is the number of the beast from the Book of Revelations. Interestingly, there is a minor textual variant at this point, some manuscripts give the number not as '666' but as '616', others as '665'. '666' is found in P47 (part of the Chester Beatty collection in Dublin), Codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus (in the British Library), plus all uncials of Revelation and other important witnesses, including the Byzantine/Majority Text. It is also found in the Old Latin version (in Codex Gigas, probably the biggest codex in the world!) and the Vulgate. Plus the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. Thus it has widespread versional support. Early Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Andrew and others quote the passage as '666'. Irenaeus made these comments as he was aware of manuscripts which read not '666' but '616'.

'616' is found in Codex C (V cent.) and P115 (III cent.) as well as a Vulgate manuscript. P115 writes the number of the Beast using its abbreviated form χις (this is the papyrus pictured), Codex C writes out the full number six hundred and sixteen. But there is one other variant, '665'. This appears only in one manuscript from the eleventh century (ms 2344).

While many attempts have been made to get 'Nero' from this gematria, this goes against the fact that 665 makes much better sense linguistically as ἀντίδικος - opponent, adversary = Satan has the numerological value of 665. Interesting also we know the Imperial pretender Avidius Cassius spelled his name Ἀουιδίος which has a value of 665. The argument from gematria that Avidius was the Devil could theoretically have been made by a Christian like Irenaeus who was trying to argue against those who might have been in Avidius a salvic figure.

[Peter Kirby]

Interesting idea.

Gaius Avidius Cassius (c.130 – July 175 AD) was a Roman general and usurper. He was born in Cyrrhus, and was the son of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus, who served as Praefectus augustalis (prefect of Roman Egypt), and Julia Cassia Alexandra, who was related to a number of royal figures, including Augustus and Herod the Great. He began his military career under Antonius Pius, rising to the status of legatus. He served during the Parthian War of Lucius Verus, in which he distinguished himself, for which he was elevated to the Senate, and later made Imperial legate. During the Bucolic War, he was given the extraordinary title of Rector Orientis, giving him Imperium over all of the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire.

In 175 AD, Cassius declared himself emperor, because he had received false news that Emperor Marcus Aurelius had died. He received broad support in the eastern provinces of Egypt, Syria, Syria Palaestina and Arabia Petraea, especially Syria, which was his homeland. Despite his control of the vital grain production of Egypt, and his command of seven legions, he was heavily outmatched by Aurelius. While Aurelius was amassing a force to defeat Cassius, a centurion of one of Cassius' legions murdered Cassius, sending his head to Aurelius as proof.

How do the Montanists play into this?

Scholars debate as to when Montanus first began his prophetic activity, having chosen dates varying from c. AD 135 to as late as AD 177.[3][page needed][4] Montanus was a recent convert when he first began prophesying, supposedly during the proconsulate of Gratus in a village in Mysia named Ardabau; no proconsul and village so named have been identified, however.[5] Some accounts claim that before his conversion to Christianity, Montanus was a priest of Apollo or Cybele.[6][a] He believed he was a prophet of God and that the Paraclete spoke through him.

Montanus proclaimed the towns of Pepuza and Tymion in west-central Phrygia as the site of the New Jerusalem, making the larger - Pepuza - his headquarters.[8] Phrygia as a source for this new movement was not arbitrary. Hellenization never fully took root in Phrygia, unlike many of the surrounding Eastern regions of the Roman Empire. This sense of difference, while simultaneously having easy access to the rest of the Mediterranean Christian world, encouraged the foundation of this separate sect of Christianity.[9]

Montanus had two female colleagues, Prisca (sometimes called Priscilla, the diminutive form of her name) and Maximilla, who likewise claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Their popularity even exceeded Montanus' own.[10] "The Three" spoke in ecstatic visions and urged their followers to fast and to pray, so that they might share these revelations. Their followers claimed they received the prophetic gift from the prophets Quadratus and Ammia of Philadelphia, figures believed to have been part of a line of prophetic succession stretching all the way back to Agabus (1st century AD) and to the daughters of Philip the Evangelist.[11] In time, the New Prophecy spread from Montanus's native Phrygia across the Christian world, to Africa and to Gaul.

http://www.ntcanon.org/Montanism.shtml

The belief in the imminent Second Coming of Christ was not confined to Montanists, but with them it took a special form that gave their activities the character of a popular revival. They believed the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21) was soon to descend on the Earth at the little Phrygian town of Pepuza. The prophets and many followers went there, and many Christian communities were almost abandoned.

Convinced that the end of the world was at hand, Montanus laid down a rigoristic morality to purify Christians and detach them from their material desires. The new asceticism included the renunciation of marriage (later mitigated to one marriage), arduous fasting, an emphasis on virginity, the desire for martyrdom, and a stringent penitential regiment for the forgiveness of sin. In contrast to the Gnostic sects of the east that also taught an elitist enlightenment, Montanus' original doctrine eschewed sophisticated principles and speculative mysticism and initially intended his teaching to be a spiritual revival through the new prophecy within orthodox Christianity. On one hand, he honored tradition by acknowledging the biblical basis for Christian belief and accepting its apocalyptic (end of the world) themes. On the other hand, he reacted against the uniformity of a hierarchically organized Christianity that did not allow for the expression of individual religious inspiration. Official criticism of Montanus and his movement consequently emphasized the new prophecy's unorthodox ecstatic expression and his neglect of the bishop's divinely appointed rule. A feature offensive to some in the Church was the admission of women to positions of leadership.

When it became obvious that the Montanist doctrine was an attack on the Catholic faith, the bishops of Asia Minor gathered in synods and finally excommunicated the Montanists, probably ~177. Montanism then became a separate sect with its seat of government at Pepuza. It maintained the ordinary Christian ministry but imposed on it higher orders of patriarchs and associates who were probably successors of the first Montanist prophets. In the West, its most illustrious convert was Tertullian in Carthage; but it declined in importance early in the 5th century. It continued in the East until severe legislation against Montanism by Emperor Justinian I (527-565) essentially destroyed it, but some remnants evidently survived into the 9th century.

Regarding the New Testament canon, the Montanist heresy caused the great Church to develop a mistrust of all recent writings of a prophetical nature. Not only did such a feeling tend to discredit several apocalypses that may have been, in various parts of the Church, on their way to establishing themselves, but even the Revelation of John was sometimes brought under a cloud of suspicion because of its usefulness in supporting the 'New Prophecy'.

Regarding:

But there is one other variant, '665'. This appears only in one manuscript from the eleventh century (ms 2344).

and

While many attempts have been made to get 'Nero' from this gematria, this goes against the fact that 665 makes much better sense linguistically as ἀντίδικος - opponent, adversary = Satan has the numerological value of 665. Interesting also we know the Imperial pretender Avidius Cassius spelled his name Ἀουιδίος which has a value of 665. The argument from gematria that Avidius was the Devil could theoretically have been made by a Christian like Irenaeus who was trying to argue against those who might have been in Avidius a salvic figure.

Perhaps this is a Montanist variant?

The Montanists, after all, were quite active at this time in coming up with new doctrine / prophecy / interpretations, and their eschatology in particular pointed to an end of the world in the late second century, which would lend itself easily to finding references (or creating them) in texts like the Apocalypse of John to late second century figures, such as the pretender Avidius Cassius.

[Secret Alias]

https://books.google.com/books?id=dWFMA ... an&f=false

Under Marcus Aurelius in 172 there was a major insurrection, the so-called revolt of the boukoloi (literally 'herdsmen'), led by the Egyptian priest Isidoros. The boukoloi were political groups of lower-class desperadoes who fought against the Roman forces and Roman religion in defence of Egyptian political and religious independence. Western sources depict these people as fanatics and even transvestites and cannibals. Apparently the boukoloi, disguised in female clothing, approached a centurion pretending to offer gifts and, after killing him, sacrificed the body, pledged an oath on his entrails and then ate them as part of a strange demonic communion. Isidoros defeated the Romans in battle and had almost conquered Alexandria when Avidius Cassius, governor of Syria and the son of a Prefect of Egypt, strategically divided the rebels and managed to defeat them after several battles. (Dio [Xifilinus] 71.4; Historia Augusta: M. Ant. 21.2; Avid. Cass. 6.7). However, the story has a surprise ending: in 175, Avidius Cassius travelled from Syria to Alexandria and obliged his troops to declare him emperor. A fragmentary document (SB 10.10295), possibly a report made by the president of the council of Antinoupolis on his return from Alexandria on the accession of Avidius Cassius, preserves part of a letter in which Cassius states it is his right to be elected emperor because he was born in Alexandria when his father was Prefect of Egypt. Two centuries after the suicide of Antony and Cleopatra, in AD 175, the revolt of Avidius Cassius disclosed another 'secret': that the empire could be divided into Eastern and Western sub-empires, with Alexandria as the potential capital of the East. Marcus Aurelius spent the winter of 176 in Alexandria and eventually quelled the sedition, punishing and confiscating the property of all who had allegedly helped Avidius Cassius during his three-month rule. Among the victims of such confiscations and persecutions were many Christians, who were accused of political sedition against Rome. When, a few years later, Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus travelled in the East, they were addressed in numerous speeches, orations and works by Christian bishops and writers – the so-called apologists – who strenuously defended Christianity from the accusation and struggled to prove that Christians throughout the empire were utterly loyal to the emperor and even contributed to the growth and defence of the Roman empire. Some examples include Apollinaris, who recalled episodes in which Christian soldiers remained loyal to Marcus Aurelius on the Danube in 175, and Melito, bishop of Sardis, who protested against Roman decrees that ordered the persecution of Christians and asserted the loyalty of Christians to the empire. In 177, Athenagoras said that no slave would accuse the Christians, even falsely, of murder or cannibalism (although, according to Eusebius, these charges had actually been made against Christians by slaves from the persecuted churches of Lyons and Vienne in the summer of the same year).71 Finally, in 180 or 181, Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (To Autolycus 1.11) stressed Christian loyalty to the emperor. Two decades later Two decades later, Tertullian still spoke of the loyalty of Christian soldiers to Marcus Aurelius and reiterated that no Christians had supported had supported Cassius. All of these apologetic works may well have reflected laws passed in 176-180 that punished Christians and confiscated their property as retribution for their supposed participation in the revolt of Avidius Cassius. We do not know to what extent these speeches mirrored reality https://books.google.com/books?id=dWFMA ... 22&f=false

[Secret Alias]

But out of so many emperors who reigned from that time to the present, men versed in knowledge, human and divine, show us one who set himself to destroy the Christians. We on the other hand can show you a protector, if the letters of the honoured emperor M. Aurelius be searched, in which he testifies that the famous drought in Germany was put a stop to by the rain which fell in answer to the prayers of the Christians who happened to be in his army. Thus, although he did not openly abolish punishment incurred by such men, yet in another way he openly neutralized it, adding also a condemnation, and indeed a more shocking one, for their prosecutors. Of what sort then are these laws, which are put into force against us by the impious, the unjust, the base, the cruel, the foolish, the mad, and by them alone ? Laws which Trajan made less effective by forbidding Christians to be sought out; to which no Hadrian, although an investigator of all curiosities, no Vespasian, although conqueror of the Jews, no Pius, no Verus ever set his mark. Certainly the worst of men would be more readily sentenced to death by all the best, as their enemies, than by their own accomplices. [Tertullian (Irenaeus) Apology 5]

The Epistle of Marcus Aurelius references the Thundering Legion as a forged addition to the First Apology - http://gloriaromanorum.blogspot.com/201 ... legio.html

Unfortunately, most scholars consider this epistle—which may be found appended at the end of the First Apology of Justin Martyr though it has no relation to it—to be an interpolation by a later Christian writer, or else an outright fabrication. Whatever it is, its provenance is clearly quite ancient. Here it is in full:

The Emperor Cæsar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Germanicus, Parthicus, Sarmaticus, to the People of Rome, and to the sacred Senate greeting:
I explained to you my grand design, and what advantages I gained on the confines of Germany, with much labor and suffering, in consequence of the circumstance that I was surrounded by the enemy; I myself being shut up in Carnuntum by seventy-four cohorts, nine miles off. And the enemy being at hand, the scouts pointed out to us, and our general Pompeianus showed us that there was close on us a mass of a mixed multitude of 977,000 men, which indeed we saw; and I was shut up by this vast host, having with me only a battalion composed of the first, tenth, double and marine legions.
Having then examined my own position, and my host, with respect to the vast mass of barbarians and of the enemy, I quickly betook myself to prayer to the gods of my country. But being disregarded by them, I summoned those who among us go by the name of Christians. And having made inquiry, I discovered a great number and vast host of them, and raged against them, which was by no means becoming; for afterwards I learned their power. Wherefore they began the battle, not by preparing weapons, nor arms, nor bugles; for such preparation is hateful to them, on account of the God they bear about in their conscience. Therefore it is probable that those whom we suppose to be atheists, have God as their ruling power entrenched in their conscience. For having cast themselves on the ground, they prayed not only for me, but also for the whole army as it stood, that they might be delivered from the present thirst and famine. For during five days we had got no water, because there was none; for we were in the heart of Germany, and in the enemy's territory. And simultaneously with their casting themselves on the ground, and praying to God (a God of whom I am ignorant), water poured from heaven, upon us most refreshingly cool, but upon the enemies of Rome a withering hail. And immediately we recognized the presence of God following on the prayer — a God unconquerable and indestructible.
Founding upon this, then, let us pardon such as are Christians, lest they pray for and obtain such a weapon against ourselves. And I counsel that no such person be accused on the ground of his being a Christian. But if any one be found laying to the charge of a Christian that he is a Christian, I desire that it be made manifest that he who is accused as a Christian, and acknowledges that he is one, is accused of nothing else than only this, that he is a Christian; but that he who arraigns him be burned alive. And I further desire, that he who is entrusted with the government of the province shall not compel the Christian, who confesses and certifies such a matter, to retract; neither shall he commit him. And I desire that these things be confirmed by a decree of the Senate. And I command this my edict to be published in the Forum of Trajan, in order that it may be read. The prefect Vitrasius Pollio will see that it be transmitted to all the provinces round about, and that no one who wishes to make use of or to possess it be hindered from obtaining a copy from the document I now publish. [Taken from: Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the senate, in which he testifies that the Christians were the cause of his victory.]

Problems with this document are evident to anyone with even the modicum of familiarity with the history and personalities of the time period. The most obvious issue is that Aurelius himself was considered a persecutor by later Christians, and is often implicated in the severe campaign against the Christians in southern Gaul which took place in AD 177. It is argued that an emperor who looked so favorably upon the Christian God, would be unlikely to embark on such a campaign of eradication a mere three years later.

For an in-depth analysis of this document, see Peter Kovac's book, Marcus Aurelius's Rain Miracle and the Macromannic Wars which is a tour-de-force on this fascinating topic.

[Secret Alias]

I think a great case can be made that Celsus and all the apologists from the period argue on behalf of (Alexandrian) Christian participation in the revolt of Avidius Cassius. I think the core of the Apology goes back to Irenaeus and Irenaeus added the letter onto the Apology.

[Jax]

But out of so many emperors who reigned from that time to the present, men versed in knowledge, human and divine, show us one who set himself to destroy the Christians. We on the other hand can show you a protector, if the letters of the honoured emperor M. Aurelius be searched, in which he testifies that the famous drought in Germany was put a stop to by the rain which fell in answer to the prayers of the Christians who happened to be in his army. Thus, although he did not openly abolish punishment incurred by such men, yet in another way he openly neutralized it, adding also a condemnation, and indeed a more shocking one, for their prosecutors. Of what sort then are these laws, which are put into force against us by the impious, the unjust, the base, the cruel, the foolish, the mad, and by them alone ? Laws which Trajan made less effective by forbidding Christians to be sought out; to which no Hadrian, although an investigator of all curiosities, no Vespasian, although conqueror of the Jews, no Pius, no Verus ever set his mark. Certainly the worst of men would be more readily sentenced to death by all the best, as their enemies, than by their own accomplices. [Tertullian (Irenaeus) Apology 5]

The Epistle of Marcus Aurelius references the Thundering Legion as a forged addition to the First Apology - http://gloriaromanorum.blogspot.com/201 ... legio.html

Unfortunately, most scholars consider this epistle—which may be found appended at the end of the First Apology of Justin Martyr though it has no relation to it—to be an interpolation by a later Christian writer, or else an outright fabrication. Whatever it is, its provenance is clearly quite ancient. Here it is in full:

The Emperor Cæsar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Germanicus, Parthicus, Sarmaticus, to the People of Rome, and to the sacred Senate greeting:
I explained to you my grand design, and what advantages I gained on the confines of Germany, with much labor and suffering, in consequence of the circumstance that I was surrounded by the enemy; I myself being shut up in Carnuntum by seventy-four cohorts, nine miles off. And the enemy being at hand, the scouts pointed out to us, and our general Pompeianus showed us that there was close on us a mass of a mixed multitude of 977,000 men, which indeed we saw; and I was shut up by this vast host, having with me only a battalion composed of the first, tenth, double and marine legions.
Having then examined my own position, and my host, with respect to the vast mass of barbarians and of the enemy, I quickly betook myself to prayer to the gods of my country. But being disregarded by them, I summoned those who among us go by the name of Christians. And having made inquiry, I discovered a great number and vast host of them, and raged against them, which was by no means becoming; for afterwards I learned their power. Wherefore they began the battle, not by preparing weapons, nor arms, nor bugles; for such preparation is hateful to them, on account of the God they bear about in their conscience. Therefore it is probable that those whom we suppose to be atheists, have God as their ruling power entrenched in their conscience. For having cast themselves on the ground, they prayed not only for me, but also for the whole army as it stood, that they might be delivered from the present thirst and famine. For during five days we had got no water, because there was none; for we were in the heart of Germany, and in the enemy's territory. And simultaneously with their casting themselves on the ground, and praying to God (a God of whom I am ignorant), water poured from heaven, upon us most refreshingly cool, but upon the enemies of Rome a withering hail. And immediately we recognized the presence of God following on the prayer — a God unconquerable and indestructible.
Founding upon this, then, let us pardon such as are Christians, lest they pray for and obtain such a weapon against ourselves. And I counsel that no such person be accused on the ground of his being a Christian. But if any one be found laying to the charge of a Christian that he is a Christian, I desire that it be made manifest that he who is accused as a Christian, and acknowledges that he is one, is accused of nothing else than only this, that he is a Christian; but that he who arraigns him be burned alive. And I further desire, that he who is entrusted with the government of the province shall not compel the Christian, who confesses and certifies such a matter, to retract; neither shall he commit him. And I desire that these things be confirmed by a decree of the Senate. And I command this my edict to be published in the Forum of Trajan, in order that it may be read. The prefect Vitrasius Pollio will see that it be transmitted to all the provinces round about, and that no one who wishes to make use of or to possess it be hindered from obtaining a copy from the document I now publish. [Taken from: Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the senate, in which he testifies that the Christians were the cause of his victory.]

Problems with this document are evident to anyone with even the modicum of familiarity with the history and personalities of the time period. The most obvious issue is that Aurelius himself was considered a persecutor by later Christians, and is often implicated in the severe campaign against the Christians in southern Gaul which took place in AD 177. It is argued that an emperor who looked so favorably upon the Christian God, would be unlikely to embark on such a campaign of eradication a mere three years later.

For an in-depth analysis of this document, see Peter Kovac's book, Marcus Aurelius's Rain Miracle and the Macromannic Wars which is a tour-de-force on this fascinating topic.

Is it just me (God, I hope I'm not turning into a nutter) or is it that every time I turn around lately that more and more evidence seems to support a strong connection between early Christianity and the Roman military? For instance...

Regardless of the dispute over the sources, at least two intriguing facts can be gleaned from this episode: 1.) the number of Christians serving in the Roman army by the late 2nd century was not insignificant

From http://gloriaromanorum.blogspot.com/201 ... legio.html

[Secret Alias]

I mean, I might be crazy too but let's look at the evidence. Christians made a name for themselves by dying on behalf of their faith. That was their 'schtick.' It wasn't that this was a particularly profound religion. As Celsus notes Plato made most of these points a long time ago and what wasn't in Plato can be evenly divided between the rest of the philosophers. There are other factors - i.e. Jewish proselytism, the corruption or dissolution of the Empire in the third century etc. But the bottom line is that, much as in the modern era which is similarly dissolute Christians made a name for themselves out of spectacle. Just read the Martyrdom of Polycarp and the Passing of Peregrinus back to back for some reference.

So the message of Christianity was its testimony, its martyrs. In fact the message was the medium, the martyrs were the testimony. See a dead man walking. What's he a dead man walking for? Ah, he's a dead man walking for Jesus who was another dead man walking, who died to be resurrected to prove that other dead men walking could die and be resurrected by walking in his footsteps.

So that's the basic template. There were these 'perfect' witnesses to the 'perfection' of the crucified Jesus. Who was killing all these witnesses? The Roman Empire. When you look at Polycarp/Peregrinus you get this sense that the Roman involvement in these crucifixions was borderline at times. Willing martyrs, all too willing martyrs, too willing martyrs. But you get the feeling that the Romans figured out - much like being in a relationship with a passive aggressive personality - winning is often losing so they changed their ways. They weren't just content beating the shit of these 'losers.'

At some point a strategy was hatched - a strategy for dealing with losers. The natural Roman way was to delight in the cruelty of just making a spectacle of these losers. But in due course they could see this was - in terms of the card game War - the 2 card bringing down the Ace over and over again. I think the Romans realized that they couldn't win by simply butchering the hapless martyrs. They had to figure out a way to prevent Christians from instigating the authorities to make them martyrs and so the bishop figure was created or at least enhanced so that greater control over the Christian communities resulted.

In effect I think Christianity was a tolerated religion from the late second century. Of course you had to belong to 'great Church' which Celsus and undoubtedly the authorities recognized. Perhaps the bishops had a list of Christians who attended their churches. If the authorities were having problems with various instigators they could check up and see that the bishop used his authority to curb their para-suicidal impulses. Perhaps if there was a particularly dishonest or disliked autocrat the bishop wasn't as willing to comply with Imperial orders.

But the dance between the Church and the State the former being a useful tool for controlling the masses began at the end of the second century.

[Secret Alias]

I think the argument that not much in the way of documentation for martyrs in the second century is only a result of the 'great Church' being a tool of the State from the beginning. The Marcionites, Montanists and other loosely knit communities died out so their martyrs are mostly forgotten. Jewish history doesn't remember or reverse the Samaritan martyrs of the last 2000 years and vice versa.

[Jax]

However as Moss points out, the vast bulk of martyrdom stories were just that, stories.

What I actually mean is that the Roman army seems to be a group with a significant Christian population. If I am correct in my understanding that the majority of recruits for the Roman army during the principate were recruited from the offspring of Roman military settlement colonies of the late Republic, that would (to my nutter mind anyway) seem to back up my contention that Paul is actually writing to some of these Roman veteran colonies in the 1st century BCE.

Food for thought. Anyway, I have encroached on your thread long enough.

[Secret Alias]

However as Moss points out, the vast bulk of martyrdom stories were just that, stories.

I don't know if she's correct about that. I know she's on TV a lot. I'm not sure she's considered the "orthodox Church was state-sanctioned Christianity and so didn't have a lot of martyrs once it was state-sanctioned" argument. I don't think she's spent a lot time thinking about the Marcionites. She and her writing partner write well together. I don't think either of them spend a lot of time speculating about alternative forms of Christianity or alternative histories of Christianity. You know, it's stuff you read on the beach. Church history with a post-modern spin. They're always writing for the broadest audience possible and, of course, with it TV exposure on cable news. If the Church Fathers, the sworn enemies of the Marcionites said "there were a lot of Marcionite martyrs" there were a lot of Marcionite martyrs. Period.