The Antichrist Legend

[John Reece]

When I refer to the the Antichrist as a myth, I am using the word myth as a synonym for legend, or folklore, as in the out-of-copyright but not out-of-print book, The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folkore, Englished from the German by W. Bousset (London: Hutchenson and Co.,1896).

I will begin sharing excerpts from the book in a couple weeks, after I finish another thread or two.

Many associate the Antichrist myth or legend with -- among other biblical figures -- the Man of Lawlessness. For consideration while I wait to complete other threads, I will present in my next post something that came up as a result of a Google search.

[John Reece]

[Faber]

I would lean toward identifying the man of sin/lawlessness as Menahem, one of the leaders of the Jewish rebellion. He led the Sicarii on an assault against Masada, took the weapons stored there, returned to Jerusalem, and murdered the high priest Ananias. Menahem then was "without a rival in the conduct of affairs, and became an unsufferable tyrant", "had gone up in state to pay his devotions, arrayed in royal robes and attended by his suite of armed fanatics." (Josephus, War of the Jews (Niese 2:433-444; Whiston ii.17.8-9)) Granted, Josephus doesn't go as far as to say that he "opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship", or "displays himself as being God."

As for who or what restrains until he is taken out of the way, I would lean toward Herod Agrippa II. Whe he arrived in Jerusalem to appeal to the rebels, the Jews expressed their opposition to the abusive governor Gessius Florus. Josephus records a lengthy plea from hAgrippa in tears, begging the rebillion to take out revenge on Florus and the Romans. (Josephus, War of the Jews (Niese 2:345-404; Whiston ii.16.4-5)) At first the people agreed and Agrippa "dispelled the menace of war." But when he told the people to submit to the orders of Gessius Florus, they kicked him out of the city. (Niese 2:405-407; Whiston ii.117.1))

[John Reece]

I would lean toward identifying the man of sin/lawlessness as Menahem, one of the leaders of the Jewish rebellion. He led the Sicarii on an assault against Masada, took the weapons stored there, returned to Jerusalem, and murdered the high priest Ananias. Menahem then was "without a rival in the conduct of affairs, and became an unsufferable tyrant", "had gone up in state to pay his devotions, arrayed in royal robes and attended by his suite of armed fanatics." (Josephus, War of the Jews (Niese 2:433-444; Whiston ii.17.8-9)) Granted, Josephus doesn't go as far as to say that he "opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship", or "displays himself as being God."

As for who or what restrains until he is taken out of the way, I would lean toward Herod Agrippa II. Whe he arrived in Jerusalem to appeal to the rebels, the Jews expressed their opposition to the abusive governor Gessius Florus. Josephus records a lengthy plea from hAgrippa in tears, begging the rebillion to take out revenge on Florus and the Romans. (Josephus, War of the Jews (Niese 2:345-404; Whiston ii.16.4-5)) At first the people agreed and Agrippa "dispelled the menace of war." But when he told the people to submit to the orders of Gessius Florus, they kicked him out of the city. (Niese 2:405-407; Whiston ii.117.1))

What? Not the Antichrist? Nor a yet future world ruler? Nor a yet future world deceiver?

[John Reece]

When I refer to the the Antichrist as a myth, I am using the word myth as a synonym for legend, or folklore, as in the out-of-copyright but not out-of-print book, The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folkore, Englished from the German by W. Bousset (London: Hutchenson and Co.,1896).

From the opening chapter of the book cited above, here is a paragraph from the Prologue on the Babylonian Dragon Myth, by A. H. Keane:

"In some respects I might describe my work as a modest continuation of Gunkel's inquirey. In it proof might be advanced to show that the Antichrist legend is a later anthropomorphic transformation of the Dragon myth, and further that this myth has made itself felt in its traditional form far beyond the time of the New Testament, cropping out again and again now in one now in another feature of its old characterist aspects."

[John Reece]

From the Excursus on Antichrist in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, by F. F. Bruce (WBC: Word, Inc., 1982) which begins with a synopsis of The Antichrist Legend, by M. Bousset (thus saving me from having to compose one) [via Accordance]:

Excursus on Antichrist

1. The background

[John Reece]

In the last post above, I failed to say that in his Excursus on Antichrist, F. F. Bruce not only provides a synopsis of Bousset's The Antichrist Legend, Bruce's treatment is also a critique of and an updating of the the Antichrist legend ― by a first-rate scholar who apparently accepts a modified version of the legend as an integral part of legitimate interpretation.

There are 6 parts to his critique/updating of the legend/myth of Antichrist as applied to biblical texts, of which my last post was but the first.

[John Reece]

The Antichrist Legend

Continued from prior post:

2. In the Apocalypse

[John Reece]

The Antichrist Legend

Continued from last post↑

From the Excursus on Antichrist in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, by F. F. Bruce (WBC: Word, Inc., 1982) [via Accordance]:

3. The imperial persecutor

The Ascension of Isaiah, an early Christian document, incorporates a Testament of HezekiahAsc IsaAsc Isa 4:3).

From about the same date (late first century AD) some of the Sibylline OraclesOr SibOr SibEp. of BarnabasTg Isa

To be continued...

[John Reece]

The Antichrist Legend

Continued from last post↑

From Excursus on Antichrist in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, by F. F. Bruce (WBC: Word, Inc., 1982) [via Accordance] ― the 4th of 6 parts:

4. The false prophetHist Eccl 4.14.7).

To be continued...

[John Reece]

The Antichrist Legend

Continued from prior posts above↑

From Excursus on Antichrist in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, by F. F. Bruce (WBC: Word, Inc., 1982) [via Accordance] ― the 4th of 6 parts; correction, 7 parts (I miscounted):

4. The false prophetHist Eccl 4.14.7).

To be continued...

It has been many years since I first read Bruce's commentary on Thessalonians, and my memory being as impaired as it is, I had not remembered any of it. I just this evening finished a contemporary reading the whole of it in full, and find that I have misrepresented it in comments in various posts above. The more of it that I read, and the more often I read it, the more favorably impressed with it I have become.

[Rushing Jaws]

From the opening chapter of the book cited above, here is a paragraph from the Prologue on the Babylonian Dragon Myth, by A. H. Keane:

"In some respects I might describe my work as a modest continuation of Gunkel's inquirey. In it proof might be advanced to show that the Antichrist legend is a later anthropomorphic transformation of the Dragon myth, and further that this myth has made itself felt in its traditional form far beyond the time of the New Testament, cropping out again and again now in one now in another feature of its old characterist aspects."

## The dragonicity of the aforesaid dragon was pretty thoroughly shattered by Alexander Heidel in 1949. There may well be a connection between the Babylonian "Epic of Creation" - a better name might be, "The Exaltation of Marduk" - and Revelation 12-13; but, not because Marduk's enemy Tiamat is a dragon. The link is that Tiamat is both the Divine Sea, and the monster that comes from it. The Great Red Dragon of 12 has a name that reflects the meaning of the word *mush-hush-shu*, which is the emblematic animal associated with Marduk, just as the lion is the animal of Ishtar, or the bull is the emblem of Adad. But as Heidel shows, there is no reason to identify Tiamat as a dragon in form or even as associated with the dragon.

The myth about Marduk and the Sea is a specific version of an ancient and widespread myth. The enemy is variously a deity, a creature sent by a deity, the sea itself, a beast from the sea. The horses of Poseidon that destroy Hippolytus son of Theseus make one variant of the myth, St George and the Dragon is another, Perseus and his sea-monster, the fight of the god Adad with the sea, the Hittite myth of Ishtar and the sea, stories of Apostles and Saints subduing or killing sea-monsters, the goddess Anath and the god Yamm (= Sea) are others; and, not least, Michael and the Great Red Dragon, and the Beast from the Sea, in Rev. 12-13. Not to mention the animals from the sea in Daniel 7. And as Heidel's discussion shows, the OT has many echoes of the myth

But it's misleading to talk of the "Dragon myth", because 1) the antagonist is not always a dragon; & 2) if the myth is so called after the antagonist of Marduk, the antagonist is not a dragon, but simply a goddess who is the ancestor of all things (other than her spouse Apsu, apparently).

For Heidel 1949, see especially page numbers 82-89, 102-114 of https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uch...sc_genesis.pdf

[John Reece]

## The dragonicity of the aforesaid dragon was pretty thoroughly shattered by Alexander Heidel in 1949. There may well be a connection between the Babylonian "Epic of Creation" - a better name might be, "The Exaltation of Marduk" - and Revelation 12-13; but, not because Marduk's enemy Tiamat is a dragon. The link is that Tiamat is both the Divine Sea, and the monster that comes from it. The Great Red Dragon of 12 has a name that reflects the meaning of the word *mush-hush-shu*, which is the emblematic animal associated with Marduk, just as the lion is the animal of Ishtar, or the bull is the emblem of Adad. But as Heidel shows, there is no reason to identify Tiamat as a dragon in form or even as associated with the dragon.

The myth about Marduk and the Sea is a specific version of an ancient and widespread myth. The enemy is variously a deity, a creature sent by a deity, the sea itself, a beast from the sea. The horses of Poseidon that destroy Hippolytus son of Theseus make one variant of the myth, St George and the Dragon is another, Perseus and his sea-monster, the fight of the god Adad with the sea, the Hittite myth of Ishtar and the sea, stories of Apostles and Saints subduing or killing sea-monsters, the goddess Anath and the god Yamm (= Sea) are others; and, not least, Michael and the Great Red Dragon, and the Beast from the Sea, in Rev. 12-13. Not to mention the animals from the sea in Daniel 7. And as Heidel's discussion shows, the OT has many echoes of the myth

But it's misleading to talk of the "Dragon myth", because 1) the antagonist is not always a dragon; & 2) if the myth is so called after the antagonist of Marduk, the antagonist is not a dragon, but simply a goddess who is the ancestor of all things (other than her spouse Apsu, apparently).

For Heidel 1949, see especially page numbers 82-89, 102-114 of https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uch...sc_genesis.pdf

Many thanks, Rushing Jaws, for the updating of scholarly refinements of the myth, whatever it may be named or however it may be described.

[John Reece]

The Antichrist Legend

Continued from prior posts↑

From Excursus on Antichrist in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, by F. F. Bruce (WBC: Word, Inc., 1982, [via Accordance]) ― the 5th of 7 parts (color emphasis added by JR):

5. In Irenaeus and his successorsAdv. Haer.Exegesis has here slipped its moorings to drift in the sea of imaginationAdv. Haer.But a line of interpretation which was reasonable while the Roman Empire still existed as a persecuting power loses something of its persuasiveness when it has to be stretched on a Procrustean bed to make room for a gap of many centuries between the fall of that empire and the rise of Antichrist.

To be continued...

[Rushing Jaws]

Would it be fair to say that the Church stopped thinking eschatologically sometime before Victorinus, and if so, why ? The sheer variety of methods of interpretation of Rev is bewildering.