I propose including a brief mention of Francesco Carotta’s theory that the number 666 in the Book of Revelation refers to Cleopatra. Carotta, a linguist and historian, argues that only the name Cleopatra, using Greek numerals, explains all three manuscript variants: 616, 666, and 665. This challenges the traditional association with Nero and other Roman emperors. His findings are detailed in a recent scholarly article and a book published in October 2024, where he demonstrates the calculation using the Greek spelling of Cleopatra’s name.
This theory has attracted attention in academic and popular discussions, as it could significantly alter the traditional interpretation of the Book of Revelation and its historical context. Given the recent publication of both a book and an online article on this groundbreaking study, I believe a neutral summary in the article would be appropriate for completeness and to reflect ongoing scholarly debate.
https://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/articula/Apokalypse_de.pdf
https://uitgeverijaspekt.nl/product/666-die-offenbarung-des-johannes-als-verklarung-der-taten-octavians/
https://dejister.wordpress.com/2025/07/03/wat-schreef-alban-bonilla-over-cleopatra-666-van-taalkundige-francesco-carotta/ 2001:1C00:6C01:4700:785B:ACD:9211:CF40 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- What utter nonsense. No credible academic takes Francesco Carotta's nonsense seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Significant portions of Francesco Carotta’s theory have been subjected to peer review or have received serious consideration in academic discourse. For instance, philosopher Alban Bonilla references the established interpretation that the number 666 alludes to the Roman emperor Nero, but he also explicitly engages with Carotta’s linguistic hypothesis, which posits that 666 in fact refers to Cleopatra. Similarly, the Spanish cultural anthropologist Francisco Rodríguez Pascual describes Carotta’s broader thesis as “possible” and, consequently, “of great significance as a working hypothesis,” as noted in a documentary concerning Carotta’s work. The Dutch classicist and Plutarch translator Gerard Janssen characterizes Carotta’s research as “an important theory that merits thorough scholarly discussion.” Furthermore, the ancient historian Luciano Canfora has expanded upon Carotta’s framework by arguing that the motif of bodily defilement is present in both the narratives of Caesar and Christ.
Within the Netherlands, several prominent intellectuals—including historian Thomas von der Dunk and philosophers Andreas Kinneging and Paul Cliteur—have publicly expressed positive or supportive assessments of Carotta’s theory, considering it sufficiently compelling to warrant public defense or inclusion in academic debate. The Greek linguist Fotis Kavoukopoulos has even described Carotta’s hypothesis as representing “a paradigm shift in the history of religion.” Linguists Subba Raju and Bh. V. N. Lakshmi assert that the parallels between the two central figures—Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ—are most evident in their respective passion narratives, which follow an analogous sequence: conspiracy, murder, posthumous trial, cremation (in the case of Caesar), and crucifixion (in the case of Jesus). According to Carotta, the most striking parallel lies in the crucifixion of Jesus, which he contends closely resembles the funeral of Caesar.
The distinguished archaeologist Erika Simon has commented on Carotta’s work, noting that it reveals “new connections which have never been seen that way before.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:6C01:4700:85C7:1F87:6817:DB69 (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- You have provided no citations whatsoever for any of that. Do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. The first ref is not useful as it is a user-generated blog. The second ref is not useful as it appears to be just a sales site. The third ref appears to be a copy of Carotta's article. Where are the independent refs discussing his theory? Meters (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- I was asking for citations for all that waffle in the second post. Not that most of it is even relevant to this article. In the unlikely event that we were to include anything on Carotta’s theory about Cleopatra and the Number of the Beast, we would have first to have properly-cited evidence that this particular theory has been given serious consideration in relevant mainstram academic circles. Things that random philosophers or whatever said about Carotta's theories about Caesar and Christ have no bearing on that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- That's what I meant. Meters (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump demands that we wait for “properly-cited evidence that this particular theory has been given serious consideration in relevant mainstream academic circles.” Well, since Carotta's discoveries are new and their significance has been compared to those of Darwin and Galileo (Paul Cliteur), we may have a long wait ahead of us: it took half a millennium for Galileo's theory to be accepted.
But beware: Galileo's theory was already correct even before it was accepted. Acceptance or non-acceptance says nothing about the correctness of a theory – least of all one that is rejected a priori because it is theologically or politically incorrect.
However, it does not matter whether Carotta's theory is accepted or not. Because, as it says above: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cleopatra article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Accordingly, it is not a question of discussing whether Carotta's theory is accepted or not, but whether mentioning it is an “improvement to the Cleopatra article” or not. Conversely, one must also ask whether not mentioning it is an improvement to the Cleopatra article. What will happen to Wikipedia if it is recognized at some point? People will say, “Oh, Wikipedia, it only publishes politically correct or trivial information.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.85.154.204 (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL Dinoguy7 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
