L.J.Lietaert Peerbolte The Antecedents of Antichrist A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological OpponentsSUPPLEMENTS TO THE JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF JUDAISM Formerly Studia Post-Biblica Editor JOHN J. COLLINS ‘The Divinity School, University of Chicago Associate Eéitr FLORENTINO GARCIA MARTINEZ (Qumran Insitute, University of Groningen Adory Board M, BOERTIEN~ J. DUHAIME ~ A. FiLNORST ~ M. DE Jono M.A. Kesue ~ M, MACH ~B. OTZEN ~ J-T.A.G.M. VAN RUTTEN J StevERS ~ G. STEMIERGER ~ J. TROM? ~ A.S. VAN DER WoUDE, VOLUME 49 Gy, Gio, a Tess" TAS, Ah 8 Uy Hrd THE ANTECEDENTS OF ANTICHRIST A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents BY LJ. LIETAERT PEERBOLTE Home Aue “Traypssos Vol da3 Yale, 14 Agosto ds toe MOry, ® 1683 A ast! Soy + brave EJ. BRILL LEIDEN - NEW YORK - KOLNDie Deutsche Bibliothek ~ CIP-Einheitsaufoahme [Journal for the study of judaism / Supplement] Journal for the study of judaism. Supplement. ~ Leiden ; New York : Koln : Brill Vol. 49, Titaert Peerbolte, Lambertus J: The antecedents of “Antichrist. ~ 1996 Lietaert Peerbolte, Lambertus J. ISSN 1384-1261 ISBN 90 0¢ 10455 0 © Copyright 1996 by EJ. Bil, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of Ui pubation may be rare, ransoted, ted in @rebical ten, or tansmted in any form or B7 cy mens, electri, chanical, photocopying, recording or others without prio eriten “pein from the ublisr. Atri ty ts fen pon Daas MA 01923, USA. Faso sj to hares TABLE OF CONTENTS PARTONE ‘THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN VIEWS ONESCHATOLOGICAL OPPONENTS FALSE PROPHETS, FALSE MESSIAHS, AND CHAOS: MARK 13 PARR AND 1 APOC. PIve ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS 4, THE ANTICHRIST: 1 AND 2 JOHN AND POLYCARP, PHIL, A. Introducti B.1 John 2, C.1 John 4, D.2 John E. The Tradition of the Antichrist in 1 and 2 John. F. Polycarp, Phil. G. Conclusi 5. THEDRAGON, THE BEAST, AND THE FALSE PROPHET: ‘THE BOOK OF REVELATION. C. The Woman, the D. The Two Beasts... 8. BELIAR: THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH 4, ‘A. Introduction. ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS vor PARTTWO CONTEMPORARY JEWISH VIEWS ON ESCHATOLOGICAL OPPONENTS |. THE BOOK OF DANIELvan ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS D, Eschatological Tyrants E. The Legend of Nero’s Retun, F. Beliar as an Eschatological Opponent G. Conclusi 18. CONCLUSION TO PART TWO. 19. GENERAL CONCLUSION -... BIBLIOGRAPHY... INDEX LOCORUM.. ABBREVIATIONS 1 Ancient Sources ‘The titles of biblical, apocryphal, pscudepigraphicel, and carly patristic sources, as well, b. Translations Charles, APOT RH, Charles (ed), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ofthe Old Testament in English, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913). ‘EH. Charlesworth (¢d.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, Charlesworth, OTP seud Elliot, ApocNT UK. Elli, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxfords Clarendon, 1993). Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NTApok Kautzsch, APAT Schneemelcher, NTAPok Spars, ApocOT Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984). Reference Works Bauer, Worterbuch ‘Aland, B. Aland, Griechisch- ddeutsches Werterbuch 2u den Schriften des NeuenEDF Gesenius, Worterbuch Hatch Redpath, Concordance Koehler Baumgartner Ls} Moulton Milligan, Vocabulary Moulton-Turer, Grammar Pauly-Wissowa Schirer,et al, History ABBREVIATIONS Testaments wd der frdhchistlchen Literatur (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 6th ed, 1988), F. Blass, A. Debronner, FLW. Funk, A Greek Graimenar ofthe New Testament and Other Early (Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961). P. Blass, A. Debrunner, F des neutestamenlichen Gri ‘Vandenhoock & Ruprec H, Balz, G. Schneider ( Worterbuch 2wn Ne Leipzig: Vogel, 17th ed. E. Hatch, H. Redpath, A Septuagint,2 vols. with Supplement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1897; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, ‘LH, Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3: Syntar, by N. Turner Edinburgh: revision and edition of: E, Scher, The History Strack-Billebeck ThWNT ABBREVIATIONS xI ‘The Anchor Bible Dictionary Arbeiten aut Geschichte des antken Judentums ‘und des Urehristentums ‘Analects Biblica ‘Geschichte der biblischen Exegese risches Handweorcerbuch Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Commentare du Nouveau Testament Compendia Rerum Tudaicarum ad Novara ‘Testamentum us scripioum Chrisianorum orientaliam College Theology Society Resources in Religion Concordia Theological Quarterly Dictionnaire dela Bible Dictionnaire dela Bible, Supplement Dizionario paristico ‘BnadesbibliquesABBREVIATIONS Bvangelsh-katholscher Kommentar zim ‘Neuen Testament Encyclopedia of Religion Encyclopaedia of Religionand Ethics Ele bed tudes ives EpleniristheolgiaeLovaninses ‘European University Stadies Fontes Christian! The Foo he Ol Tesanent Lier Ferelunger au Relgo dca ‘itn and ies Testes ingche eee Ancien etre rece Fieliuch 2 don Sporryphen Hanan Disergios tr etgion Handbuch um Neven Test Hebrew Sais Hava Sem Mono Herd oli’ Roca am Nevsn t Harvard Theological Review ‘Hermeneutsche Untersuchungen zur Theologie Intemational Critical Commentary of the Holy ‘Scriptures The Interpreters Dictionary ofthe Bible Jahrbuch fir Anike und Christentun Journal of Bibtca Literature Jeri Enoclpeaia ‘Journal of the Evangelical Theological Sociery Journal of Jewish Studies idische Schriften aus hellenistiseh-timischer Ze forthe Study of Judaism in the Persian, mnistic, and Roman Period Journal forthe Study ofthe Old Testament Journal forthe Study of the Old Testament ‘Supplement Series Joumal forthe Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplemeat Series Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar uber dss Neue Testament high voor Ker ‘New Bible Dictionary New Century Bible New Clarendon Bible ABBREVIATIONS ‘Nag Hammadi Studies [New International Commentary on the New Gkumenischer Taschenbuch Kommentar zm Neuen Testament De Prediking van bet Nieuwe Testament scadepigrapha Veteris Testament Graece Realletikon fr Antike und Christenson Recherches bibliques Revue biblique Revue des études augustiniennes Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart Religions in the Graeco-Roman World Rewue del histoire des religions Regensburger Neues Testament Rewue de Qumran Rémische Quaralschif fr chistliche Altertunskunde Reformed Theological Review Studien zum Alien und Neven Testament ‘Scouish Journal of Theology ‘Saint Mark's Review ‘Supplements to Novum Testamentarm SNTS Monograph Series, Studia Post Biblica Soudia Purstica Mediolanensia Studia Theologica, Scandinavian Journal of Theology Supplements to Vigiliae Chrstianae Studia in Veters Testament Pseudepigrapha Tyndale Bulletin ‘Translations of Farly Documents Theologische Bidiner Theologische Bucherei Theologischer Handkommentar 2um Neven Testament Theologische LiseranurzeitungABBREVIATIONS Theologische Rundschaw Theologische Revue Theologische Studien und Kritiken ‘Theologische Untersuchungen Theologische Zeitschrift Trinity Journal Thaologische Realensyklopadie ‘Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der theologice consequendum conseriptn Usechtse Theologische Reeks Vigiliae Christianae Vetus Testamentim Wissenschafliche Monographien mum Alten und ‘Neuen Testament ‘Wissenschafliche Untersuchungen zum Neven ‘Tesament archer Bibelkommentare Zeitschvif fir die newestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der lteren Kirche Zeitschaif fr wissenschaptche Theologie PREFACE A century after Bousset’s monumental work Der Antichrist I defended views on eschatological op- 1995). The present volume is a slightly revised version of that Perhaps, at this place, a brief re for this book. My fascination with the subject grew out of wonder. Wonder why people came to such beliefs as the early Christians did. spect a demonic creature coming from yy? And: why would such an expect spectrum than many students of the New Testament real idea that one Antichrist legend forms the background anding of the variety of these way they are rooted in Jewish T would like to thank Prof. dr. M. de Jonge and Prof. dr. H.J. de Jonge for being my supervisors. They both gave me great support and to its improvement. My colleagues of Leiden University, dr. H.W. Hollander, dr. J. Holleman, dr. J. Tromp and Mr. B.W.J. de Ruyter, M.A. indefatigably aided me with their help- 1e present series publishing house for Leiden, November 1995 LJ. Lietaert PeerbolteCHAPTER ONE ‘THE SUBJECT AND THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH ‘A. INTRODUCTION In Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature of the period 200 B.C. - A.D. 150 there is firmly rooted belief that the present age is charac- terised by evil. That this evil will reach a climax as the end of the age approaches is also generally expected. Various evil persons are described and expected to act at various stages of history. Among these, the figure of the Antichrist has become the standard eschatological ‘opponent of Jesus Christ. The word ‘Antichrist’ (évxizmotoc) occurs only in Christian literature. Its first mention is found in the Epistles of John: 18. 2 Johm 7. In the latter part of the second century A.D. the various traditions on eschatological opponents of Jesus Christ were sub- sumed under the one concept of Antichrist.! Several authors in the third Christian century produced extensive speculations on Antichrist? and ‘rom then on this figure became well-known among Christians as their as their Lord’s, ultimate enemy. From Irenaeus onward the one and only ultimate eschatological opponent of Jesus also in the period before Irenaeus Christian authors speculated on eschatological opposition and opponents, ‘The above mentioned passages in the Johannine erature before Irenaeus in les are the only Antichrist. A number of other passages from the same period deal with the phenomenon of eschatological opposition and in some of them one or 30; Tenullian, Res, Car. XXIV: 6024; XXVIE 1644; Hippolytus, De Ane, passiay; Comm. 809.822.823.838 927-936; Cyprian, Cement, Hom. 2 174-5; Vietosnas ofame from, and why the igs under discussion incorporated them, the present author's view of the starus quaestionis will be presented (section C) 'B. THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH ‘Twentieth century research of the expectations of esc tion in early Christian literature is dominated by the graphs, beginning with two of the major works of the religions school: H. Gunkel, Schdpfung und Chaos in Urzei 895); W. Bousset, Der Antici a des Judentums, des Newen Testaments und der alten Kirche (1 iedlinder, Der 1 opposition au royaume messiai Nouveau Testament in den Schriften des Neuer and Early Development of the Antichrist. Two Thousand Years of t (1994). Together with these monographs two addit 2 (1920), pp. . Pp. 450-457.1 * Among the mumerous further publications on “Antichrist” the following should be ‘mentioned: E. Renan, L'Antech Michel Lévy Freres, 1873), H. Preuss, ‘THE SUBIECT AND THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH 5 In his Schépfung und Chaos! H. Gunkel deals with Genesis 1 and Revelation 12. He treats both chapters as having developed under the influence of the Babylonian myth of the struggle between Marduk and Tiamat. Gunkel regards Revelation 12 as being closely related to Daniel 7, though not dependent on it. According to him th s between the two chapters prove the closeness of the relationship, but the disagreements prevent the conclusion of literary dependency. Hence Gunkel concludes that Revelation 12 and Daniel 7 were modelled after the same tradition, namely, that of the Babylonian Chaos Myth? The importance of Gunkel’s work lies not in his exegesis of Revelation 12. (Bousset even dismissed it in a few words as ‘nothing ‘more than a piece of pure fancy work, which would better have been left undone’). Gunkel’s work was of the utmost importance for two reasons. First, it drew attention to the fact that old traditions may recur in relatively recent writings, and that the notion of eschatological opposition as found in Revelation 12 may indeed have its background ‘old mythological material. As will become clear, Bousset shared view. Second, Gunkel rejected both Zeitgeschichte and Literarkritik as being the ultimate approaches to the exegetical problems of the book of Revelation. Instead, he drew attention to the stability of mythological (1970, pp. 39-62; dma 567-568; 8. Hamann, O. Bacher, G.A ‘4B: R. Sehnackenburg AS. van der Woude (eds), Text and camper: Kok, ‘dies of Rigaux, Lohmeyer, and Emst, ‘whereas Jenks" monograph appeared too Inte to be taken ini aecoune, "Pull tide: Schdpfung und Chaos in Urzei und Endseit (Gtitingen: Vandenhocck & Ruprec, 1855). ‘Schdpfang und Chaos, p. 380; ef, alo pp. 270-271 3 Schopfung und Chaos, pp. 379-398. + Amtichris Legend, p13 (© Der Antichrist p.7),6 ‘THE ANTECEDENTS OF ANTICHRIST. traditions.! This even led him to assume an esoteric, oral tradition by means of which mythological views were handed on? Notwithstanding the lasting influence of Gunkel’s work, W. Bousset’s monograph on the tradition of the Antichrist, which he himself saw as more or less a continuation of Gunkel’s work, has proved to be more influential. It was Bousset’s aim to prove 1) that the eschatological tradition of the Antichrist is a later remodelling of the old myth of the Dragon, 2) that this myth had its influence upon the tradition of the ‘Antichrist until far after the time of the New Testament, and 3) that sep- arate elements of the myth appear in numerous sources from various times.* Bousset came to these conclusions after he had studied a vast amount of sources from a wide range of time periods. ‘The method Bousset used for his research was that of comparing data from the New Testament with data from later sources which had incor- porated traditions independent of the New Testament.’ Thus, features of the description of the Antichrist that occur for the first time in post-bib- lical writings were taken as proof for the existence of a pre-Christian, esoteric oral teaching concerning the Antichrist. Bousset was able to use this method on the basis of two presuppo: tions. First, he shared Gunkel’s view on the stability of eschatological tradition: most features of such a tradition were supposed to have re- ‘mained as they were for a very long period.* Second, Bousset treated the eschatological sections of the New Testament as fragments of a larger hhidden tradition that forms the connection between the various individ- ual passages.” It is the combination of these presuppositions which led Bousset to assume that the Antichrist legend originated in a Jewish tradi- 1 For Boussets view ofthe positive results of Gunkl's work, cf Der Amichrist pp. 48 2 Sehdpfung und Chas, 9, 265. 3 Der Antichrist in der Uberlieferang des J pp. 291-294: sce W. Bousset, H, Gressmann, Die Religion des Judentuns im rneutestamerichen Zeitaler (ANT 21; Tubingen: Mohr he, 1960), pp. 254-256 "Der Antcht segendber dem Neuen Testame fesiesamenliche Zit © Der Antichrist, p. 8. 7 Der Antichrist, p1. ‘THE SUBJECT AND THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH 1 tion of the Antichrist. Bousset further assumed this tradition to have been the core of a secret, oral teaching.! Bousset’s approach resulted in a collection of twenty-one features of the tradition of the Antichrist. Each of these features is treated by means of a discussion of the relevant passages from the corpus which Bousset examined. Although Bousset’s work still stands out as a monument of learning, decisive objections can be made to the two presuppositions on which it rests.} The first is that of the stability of an eschatological tradition, Indeed, it cannot be doubted that there is a high degree of continuity within the tradition of the Antichrist between, say, A.D. 300 and 1000. But to use a comparison with later sources in order to draw conclusions about the content and origin of the tradition that is supposed to be extant in the New Testament is a risky method. And what is more, this particu- lar comparison cannot do justice to the individual, historical character of the primary sources (2 Thessalonians; Mark 13 parr; 1-2 John; Revelation). These sources should be studied in their own right and seen in their own historical context Closely related to this is the second objection to Bousset’s approach. His presupposition of an oral, esoteric tradition, which is nowadays gen- erally rejected, led him in the wrong direction. The various eschato- logical passages in the corpus of the New Testament discussed by Bousset cannot be regarded as different parts of one monolithic eschatological tradition that formed their hidden background. In this respect he was mistaken. Nevertheless, his views have exercised great influence on many scholars in the 20th century. 1 Der Anticrist, pp. 18-19. 2 The feaures are’. Die Vora ‘Das Weligericht’ CE. Anichr of Bousset's work cf also Emit, Die eschatologichen Gegentpieler low), pb. 283-286, and Jenks, Anucirst Myth (ul ile: see below), fp. (ful tile: see 3. 4 in is 1908 anicle for ERE (Cf. above, p.6,n, 3) Bousset paid more a continuity with contemporary Jewish sources than he did in Der An8 THE ANTECEDENTS OF ANTICHRIST In almost complete contrast to the lasting influence of Bousset stands the work of M. Friedlinder.! His monograph on the tradition of the Antichrist has been almost completely forgotten. This the fact that the book hardly deals with the Antich all. In fact, the Antichrist tradition is treated as part of the teachings of a Jewish sect which Friedlinder supposed to exist: the so-called *Minim’. to Friedlinder, the Minim had been a religious party with a completely differen that of the leading religious parties in first century Palestine.? In a way one might say that in Der Antichrist Fr ler tried to incorporate the esoteric teaching concerning the t the Antichrist legend was a Jewish tradi ‘0 Christian eschatology was more or According to Charles, the tradition of the Ar three independent traditions s isto (TED 1: London: SPCK, 1917), pp, LEAK A ‘xegetcal Commentary onthe Revelation oft. Joh va. 2 (Cs Edinburgh Ca Tet me In this stage the conception of the Antichrist would have taken two forms: that of the ‘nvidia of te cllocive, Arcus. The Gob oppsing : 1.3640: Pos, Sol 2399 ‘ates the wradiion ofa Satar-like igure named Beliar. CE. Charles, Revelation, vol 2,p. 80, (Of course, Chris id not have at his disposal the many texts from Quoiran in which Boia, hich sun Hebrew form ofthe word, mentioned), ‘THE SUBJECT AND THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH 9 fusion would have taken place between the traditions of the Antichrist and Beliar on the one hand: and those of the Antichrist and Nero on the other.’ The third and final stage would have been the ultimate fusion of all three traditions into one “Antichrist - Beliar - Nero? If one takes into account the sources Charles used for this theory and the way in which he treated them, one can only conclude that Charles ” theory tis a warming ag Schematic Traditionsgeschichte. The logical development in the various stages which Charles assumes, is not evident. Yet Charles’ research did effect an important step forward: he drew attention to the Hellenisti Jewish context of early Christianity, and tried to account for the growth of the Antichrist by studying this tradition in the context in which it developed. Rigaux’s approach differs from that of his two predecessors in that he takes the Old Testament as his starting-point. He lays great weight on the evelopment is existence, a8 ‘he simple Neronic myth needs some levelop the expectation of Nero revs, OF Nevo a @ Revelation, vol. 2 . 83. Cf. Revelation, vol. 2, pp, 83-85 Past et ! opposition au royaume messianique dans ("Ancien et le Noweaw Teggament (UCLD 1.24; Pars: Gabalds; Gemboy.: Ducat, 1952), Sandehest pp. XXL,10 ‘THE ANTECEDENTS OF ANTICHRIST 'y and development of the views on the Antichri opposition to the messianic kingdom from the pre-exilic era ut period of the New Testament. In his enquiry Rigaux does not confine view developed into the expectation of an earthly, eschatological opposi- tion dominated by the supernatural struggle between the powers of good the New Testament ion had fundamentally messianic opposition developed: the present opposition (all opposition and against the church) and the future es- chatological opposition In the New Testame: the future eschato- logical opposition is regarded as finding its realisation in certain indi- viduals: the Antichrist, the Beast, the man of ungod! Rigaux's monograph is clearly outmoded. He overestimated the influence of the Old Testament prophets underestimating, the continuity between the earliest Christian views and those of contemporary Judaism, Furthermore, his use of the sources was, For these reasons Rigaux’s work is inadequate.” ‘THE SUBJECT AND THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH ul ‘The fact that not everyone was convinced that an already fixed of the Antichrist formed the basis for the passages on eschatologic: opposition in the New Testament is revealed by an article on ‘Antichrist’ by E. Lohmeyer (1941).1 In this article Lohmeyer mentions the old myth of the struggle between a deity and a demonic monster (for example Tiamat, the Dragon, Python, Typhon, Midgard) as the original background of the tradition of the Antichrist. The tradition of Satan/Beliar is presented as an elaboration of this myth. Together with this tradition of Satan, Lohmeyer mentions Daniel’s picture of the final ignifies the first breach in the Bousset - Charles more of less ruled the scholarly world on this topic. Although Lohmeyer’s article is limited in its scope it did mark an important step forward. ‘The first author who elaborated on Lohmeyer’s insight, and truly ature, was J. Emst (1967)3 research had started as an airy im the ation ofthe 4,3; 2 John 7)as being independent from one another. The various passages of the New Testament which he discusses are treated as sharing, % 45). ie eschatologichen Cegenspeler in den Scien des Newen Testaments (BU 3: Regenshir: Finch ust, 1967), Die eschatologschen Gegenspiler, p. X a 293,12 ‘THE ANTECEDENTS OF ANTICHRIST at best, certain m -y are not perceived as individual elaborations (namely, that of the Antichrist). According to Emst the motifs used by the authors of the New Testament passages were derived from a variety of sources, including Nebuchadnezzar's dream and the visions of Dani Ezekiel’s description of Gog (Ezekiel 38-39), the tradition of Israel’s enemy from the North Goel 2,20; Amos 7), Istael"s views on the eschatological enmity of the surrounding pagan peoples (reconstructed by Emst from a great number of Old Testament passages) a Genesis (Genesis 2; a number of passages from the wo parts of the book Emst discusses the of *Satan/the Devil/Beliar’? and the ‘Antichrist syntheses’ of Bousset and Charles. ‘The importance of this monograph lies in the fact that it ex acknowledges the diversity of the New logical opposition. It is ‘motifs found in the corpus treated. For this reason, it is disappointing that Emst used only three (!) pages to discuss contemporary Jewish sources! and did not treat from Qumran at any length.’ ly ings that have become canonical. Thus Emst worked from a corpus that was too confined: Didache 16, Barnabas 4, and A should have been shortcomings, Emst forward. It was the first monograph in which the presupp\ Antichrist myth or legend as the basis for all New Testament passages on eschatological opposition was successfully refuted. ‘The next monograph in which the early Christian passages on pp. 264-266. Cr. the review ofthe book by Rigauy, TAR 65 (1969), pp. 299-300, The Orig ‘THE SUBJECT AND THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH B “Antichrist myth’, as he calls it, and tries to establish its background in Jewish literature from ca. 200 B.C. onward, and in early Christian literature. The book is divided into three parts in which the author deals with ‘the Antichrist myth in the third century CE’ (1), ‘antecedent the New Testament. And in part III early ird century are discussed, together with :mporary Jewish main thesis of Jenks’ monograph is that the Antichrist myth is of jan origin. To be precise: ‘the Antichrist myth was a specific form of theodicy with a marked CI christocentric adaptation of Jewish tradi this thesis Jenks elaborates the thought ventured some twenty years ear- er by Emst. The latter held th ife after the period of the New Testament, as a result of ‘later theologi- cal reflections’ « According to Jenks the four major strands of tradition ut of which the Antichrist myth grew are: the Chaoskampf tra the Satan myth, the presupposing that a well-est third century. Although even this real problem with Jenks’ approach earlier sources too much to his own concept of a myth developing out of 1 Jenks compiles "Antichrist Mh, p36, 3 thi, p 363, 4 Ems, Die ichatologischen Gegenspleler,p. 293. Jenks minimises the imporance of Emst’s work by characterising it asa subd but dsinet change in direction from the consensus of the previous ity or so yats’ —Anichrist Myoh . 19. 5 anutcris Myth. 363 and passim, iogeneous “Antichrist myth’ out ofthe thind century soures; ef 6. The table onp. 114i especially helpful. sane time, nor is there any characteristic — other pecaps than the name "Antichrist —that ppears inal the sources."12 ‘THE ANTECEDENTS OF ANTICHRIST. at best, certain motifs; they are not perceived as individual elaborations of one and the same tradition (namely, that of the Antichrist). According to Emst the motifs used by the authors of the New Testament passages were derived from a variety of sources, including Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and the visions of Daniel ( 10-12), Ezekiel’s description of Gog (Ezekiel 38-39), the tradition of Israel’s enemy from the North Goel 2,20; Amos 7 eschatological enmity of the surrounding pagan peoples (reconstructed by Ernst from a great number of Old Testament passages), the story of the Serpent in Genesis (Genesis }, the myths of Rahab (Ps 89,10-11; Job 26,12-13), Leviathan (Ps 74,14; 104,24-26; Job 40,25-31; 41,10-12; Isa 27,1), Behemoth (Job and the Dragon (Ezek 29,3-4; 32,3.6), and finally, the picture of eschatological opponents in contemporary Jewish apocalyptic ; As, Mos. 8,1-2; a number of passages from the es). In the of ‘Satan/the Devil/Beliar’? and the “Antichrist syntheses” of Bousset and Charles.) ‘The importance of this monograph lies in the fact that it explicitly acknowledges the diversity of the New Testament passages on eschato~ logical opposition. It smpt 10 trace the roots of the various ifs found in the corpus treated. For this reason, it is disappointing that Emst used only three (!) pages to discuss contemporary Jewish sources and did not treat the scrolls from Qumran at any length.’ Furthermore, he strictly confined himself to those early Christian writ- ‘ngs that have become canonical. Thus Emst worked from a corpus that ned: Didache 16, Barnabas 4, and Ascension of Isaiah 4 should have been included as well. But notwithstanding these shortcomings, Emst’s work should be seen as an important step monograph ‘The next monograph in which the early Christian passages on s that by G. C. Jenks, and Early Development of the Antichrist ). Cf the presen author's review in NT 3 pp. 374-377, Jewish ature. The book is divided into three parts in whi 1¢ Antichrist myth in the third century CE” ), and ‘the emerging Antichrist century Chi ‘The main thesis of Jenks’ monograph is that the Antichrist myth is of Christian origin. To be precise: ‘the Antichrist myth was a specific form of theodiey with a marked Christocentric character’? It should be regarded as a ‘christocentric adaptation of Jewish tr of which was al thesis Jenks elaborates the thought ventured some twenty years ear- lier by Ernst. The latter held that the tradition of the Antichrist came to life after the period of the New Testament, as a result of ‘later theologi- cal reflections’! According to Jenks the four major st out of which the Antichrist myth grew are: the Chaoskampf traditions, the Satan myth, the False Prophet traditions, and the End Tyrant tra tions. ‘The great merit of Jenks’ work is that he tried to demonstrate the i of the tradition of the Antichrist. He rightly argues that ion of the Antichrist arose from a christocentric adapt earlier traditions. Consequently, he deals with a great number of texts presupposing ished “Antichrist myth’ existed in the third century. 4 Emst, Die eschattog Em's work by charac ofthe previous tity ors years’ — Anaichrs, ‘ ntchrst Myth, p. 363 and pain, Cy, the present autbor's eis in NT'33 myths LP) the author ‘mages about the Ant able to reconstruct appear in none f ve sources he \e— ober peas than the name "Antichrist — that appears inal te sources,4 ‘THE ANTECEDENTS OF ANTICHRIST a set of antecedent tradit yeme may have been @ necessary paradigm to shed light on the tradition of the Antichrist as it existed in the third century, but this does not mean that the sources treated by Jenks as examples of ‘the emei sources in the lens of a paradigm gear fer developments. For this very paradigm chosen for the present study is fundamentally from that of Jenks, The last book that should be mentioned is this survey is B. McGinn’s volume offers a discussion of the devel ‘opment of the Anti McGinn traces two pol this development, The fi primarily conceived of as an external force that will threa the righteous among whom the believer is numbered, or from within the righteous themselves, even from within the bel have helped shape the various ical envoy of ev merit of McGinn's Anti 3s in bot mous: the subtitle, Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination wi s fully adequate in ‘The approaé ‘appears to be the correct one. He traces the Antichrist legend in a phe- rnomenological manner, but also adds the hermeneutic question of what ‘may nowadays be the relevance of the legend. “The scope and approach McGinn chose for his monograph are, how- ever, very much different from those of the present volume. Regarding the origins of the An legend only the first two chapters of MoGinn's book are relevant. These chapters discuss the legend of (= pp. 193.385) ‘wo Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with ‘THE SUBJECT AND THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH 15 presentation of the material McGinn correctly discusses development of an Antichrist legend as a Christian one. Unfortun: however, he had to rely heavily on the work of others. Therefore, discussion adds no fundamental new insights to the research on the earliest Christian views on eschatological opponents. C. THE PRESENT STUDY 1. The Purpose Irenaeus. The three questions on which study will focus are the following: 1) exactly which views on eschatolog- ical opponents are contained in the literature, 2) why did early Christian authors incorporate traditions concer ings, and 3) what are the tradi 2. The Sources ‘The primary sources for this enquiry are those mentioned in the intro- duction to this chapter: Mark 13 pare; 2 Thess 2,1-12; 1 John 2,18.22; 4,3; 2 John 7; a number of passages in the book of Revelation; Didache 16; Barnabas 4; iah 4; Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter 2,7- Trypho 32 and 110. This corpus of Christ. Irenaeus was chosen as the natural developed tra eschatological opponents. In may be profitable to briefly indicate why each Id be taken into consideration. Jn Mark 13 and its synoptic parallels, Matthew 24-25 and Luke 21, Jesus is presented as predicting the tribulations of the Jewish war against Rome (A.D. 66-70), He is able to do so because the literary technique of the vaticinium ex eventu is used. Thus the author makes Jesus predict the circumstances of the author's own days, thereby giving his own16 THE ANTECEDENTS OF ANTICHRIST interpretation of the circumstances. Among the tribulations predicted by Jesus is the occurrence of false messiahs prophets (Mark ions is the erection wg; 13,14). The se messiah (J Apoc. Per. 2,7-13). The learly aims at warning the readers. jess 2,1-12 a mysterious ‘man of ungodliness’ or ‘ungodly one’ a a person whose coming should precede It is obvious why the pa ience, The author of 1 and 2 John used the expecta i ses of paraenesis: he used '. In comparison to 2 Thess cases the use of the ts roots in paraenesis, ly different. The author of 2 Ns argues against the neamess of the parousia of Christ, 1 Or ‘has already come". For the interpretation of Eviarnse, cf. below pp. 73-74 ‘THE SUBJECT AND THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH n author of 1 and 2 John does exac Phil. 7.1 is dependent upon 1 and 2 the same chapter. 7-10. The description of eschatological opposition against Jesus s followers, and God belongs to the most important elements of of Revelation. The way in which the Roman emperor-cult is depicted in apocalyptic images, and thereby predicted to pass away, was clearly meant to offer consolation to the readers: their possible suffering jons they had to face were part of God's plan. imagery also has a paraenetical function: the believers sive in, but to keep up ith. Outside the New Testament, there are three further writings that should be mentioned. The first of these, Didacke, contains a description of the eschata in the final chapter (c. 16). As one of the events preceding the coming of Christ the advent of the “deceiver of the world” is predicted. This deceiver will come ‘as the Son of God’, practice some signs and wonders, and will then be defeated, c.4, the present age is characterised by the deceit is presented as a feature of the author as a period of ‘deceit penultimate days, the days bel ‘describes the coming of an eschatological tyrant as predicted by Daniel Finally, the Ascension of Isaiah, c. 4, contains a descrip who comes down from heaven, persecutes the ‘plant of the Beloved’? ‘and claims to be the Messiah. The function of the description of the eschatological i Beliar is described is one of the reasons for Isaiah's death. For the knowledge of Beliar was necessary in order not to be deceived by his appearance. 2 Conceming the name of the Ascension of Isalah (the writing or pans ‘dontiied as Ascension of Isaiah, Mariyrium of Isaiah, of Testament of Hezek in ther present form a & fom the fist decades of the second cenary A.D. Toaiah Cost is described by means of the tle “Beloved. “The plant is sed as an image for "the church’.18 ‘THE ANTECEDENTS OF ANTICHRIST 3. The Problem ‘As was pointed out above, t studied a number of times. Ye the question of the unity and variety of the notions of eschatological opposition in this corpus has not been thoroughly studied.! The problem for which ‘opponents. future, Ins Roman emperor the book was cation nor a either some (Mark 13 parr), or the believers are Satan that are presented as proof of the fa t days before the parousia of Christ is very clear that there are considerable differences ericopes mentioned. Yet h the phenomenon same tradition, for example, the 1 the differences there are also cert ry diferent a2 placing thom te ov "PSce ne Dl achaoyichen Ggupllr ‘THE SUBJECT AND THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH. 19 opposition described is thought to precede the parousia of Jesus Christ wh the opposition at his coming. Furthermore, as a period ruled by evil and apostasy is igs under consideration, mostly as a charac- day. In addition, verbal parallels exist within larties within these independent passages raise the jons mentioned above: sounds of the expectations on is found in the literature? ion may need some explanation. If one takes into account the development of eschatology in early Christian idea of an eschatologi example of such an opponent is found in 2 Thessalonians.' Hence, it may be assumed that notions of eschatological opponents form a secondary development within the thoughts about the parousia of Christ, If the function of the notion of an eschatological opponent in each passage can r's intention can subsequently be inferred from from this intention that conclusions can be drawn regarding the n of why views on eschatological opponents were incorporated in rature under discussion. 4. The Approach In this study all the pericopes mentioned will be discussed in their own ight. Only on the basis of such an approach can the aforementioned questions be answered. The choice of this approach has a number of consequences: 1. All texts will have to be judged acco: ir own contents, and Not treated from the perspective of a tradition that developed later, 2. The notions in the prime corpus of texts, ic. the texts mentioned in st be traced to their direct environment: notions found in contemporary Christian or Jewish sources. If this prove Parallels should be sought in older Jewish sources, especi 1 In the presen study 2 Thess dated tothe latter half ofthe sh 20 below, pp. 64-48, lonians is regarded as a deutero-Pauline writing to be of the first century A.D, atthe eadiest For arguments,20 ‘THE ANTECEDENTS OF ANTICHRIST ‘Testament. If necessary, contemporary pagan parallels may also be taken into account. 3. Alleschatological expectations found in our corpus must be viewed in situation. contained in our corpus. PART ONE ‘THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN VIEWS ON ESCHATOLOGICAL OPPONENTSCHAPTER TWO | FALSE PROPHETS, FALSE MESSIAHS, AND CHAOS: MARK 13 PARR AND 1 APOC, PET. 2,7-13 | A. INTRODUCTION ‘The Synoptic Gospels contain many references to the coming Kingdom 9f God. They also contain references to the parousia of Christ as the Son of Man as well as other references to the end. But nothing is mentioned about any personal opponent of Christ or the Christians whose appear- ance could have been expected as the climax of evil immediately before the parousia. Still, chapter 13 of Mark does contain a desc events that Mark expected to precede the parousia. ‘This desc is adopted by Matthew and Luke, and transformed for the purposes of their individual gospels. One of the events predicted by Jesus in Mark 13 is the erection of the so-called ‘desolating sacrilege’. Many scholars have interpreted this de interpretation lacks argued that Mark 13 describes the coming of the Antich ‘enough to discuss this chapter in the present study. The alleged description of the Antichrist is not the only reason to | ‘discuss Mark 13 at length. The chapter contains expectations that tradi- tio-historically form the setting in which traditions of eschat resented in Mark 13 also occur in many other passages on eschatol cal opposition preceding the parousia of Christ: the eschatological the occurrence of false prophets and even false messiahs, and the climax of chaos. study of Mark 13 should lead to a deeper insight ical background of views on eschatological oppo- difficulties inherent in this chapter, Mark 13 will be dealt with at length. At the conclusion of the discussion of Mark 13, several brief comments will be made on the Synoptic parallels, Matt 24- 25 and Luke 212 ‘THE ANTECEDENTS OF ANTICHRIST B. MARK 13 1. Introduction Mark 13 contains the second extensive speech of Jesus in Mark (the first being Mark 4). Much has been written about the redactional and tradi- ‘tional materials contained in this chapter, and various attempts have been ‘made to reconstruct a possible Vorlage.! This method will not be adopted in the present study since attempts to prove a potential Vorlage have so far not been convincing. The main argument in support of a Vorlage is that the BBewyua vig Epmusceas of 13,14 could refer to a profanation of the temple before A.D. 70. Accordingly, the event described in 13,14 is identified, for instance, as Caligula’s attempt to have his statue erected in the temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 40. Once itis accepted that 13,2 is a vaticinium ex evennu referring to the fall of the temple, and that Mark was written after that event, the need to interpret FALSE PROPHETS, FALSE MESSIAHS, AND CHAOS 25 13,14 as a reference to a previous profanation of the temple falls away. It is obvious that chapter 13 just like ym.! He thus comments upon the fall of the temple and the eschatological enthusiasm which this event apparently evoked ? ‘The character of Jesus’ speech in chi Dlance to the literary form of a testamé Assumption of Moses, ter 13 bears a strong resem- such as that represented in, 1e Testament of Job, and the the answer to a question put Mark 13 is rather that of a Schulgesprdch: Mark has Jesus instruct his disciples on t& Eoyara, immediately before the passion narrative begins.« 1 See Beasley-Murray, Jesus, pp. 350-368: esp. p. 362