II.        History of Research on the Antichrist

A.        Hermann Gunkel, Creation and Chaos, 1895

1.         The Antichrist is the Dragon of the Babylonian Myth, where Marduk is a type of Christ and Tiamat is a type of the Antichrist.

2.         He used a History of Religions approach in his study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12 to argue that book of Revelation is based on the cyclical death-rebirth theme of the Enuma Elish.

3.         He did not use STJ.

B.        Wilhelm Boussett, The Antichrist Legend, 1896

1.         The Antichrist is a personification of the Babylonian Dragon Myth as the culmination of a long process where the Myth was adopted and adapted by each successive generation.

2.         He used the Pseudepigrapha (the Dead Sea Scrolls had not yet been discovered) to show that the apolitical Dragon Myth, where the sea monster becomes Satan and the Antichrist his personification, was used by Revelation as a polemic against Rome.

3.         A single figure was created out of two separate traditions, one of a end-time tyrant and the other an end-time deceiver.

C.        Moriz Friedlander, “L’ Anti-Messie,” REJ, 1899

1.         He used a History of Religions approach in his study of the antinomian sect the Minim to show that the Antichrist is the personification of apostasy, the culmination of all supernatural beings of who oppose God.

2.         He has been largely ignored.

D.        R. H. Charles, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Revelation, 1920

1.         The Antichrist is a God-opposing human being modeled on Antiochus IV in Daniel.

2.         Though he was not originally a superhuman nor is he Jewish, but possibly Nero Redividus, Paul turned him into a superhuman opponent of God.

3.         He found three traditions in the STJ literature (200 BC to AD 100): Beliar, Nero, and Antichrist (a fusion of the traditions after AD 88).

4.         He feels that Paul merged the False Prophet theme with Beliar to create the Man of Lawlessness.

5.         He popularized Boussett’s view and most scholars have adopted the Bouseet-Charles thesis and methodology.

E.         Beda Rigaux, Saint-Paul: Les epitres aux Thessaloniciens, 1956

1.         The Antichrist is a collective concept, so Antiochus IV is not a detailed type of the Antichrist but only one strand of the tradition.

2.         Starting with the OT and working through STJ, he sees a connection between Messiah and anti-Messiah culminating in the NT where all the strands are combined into one individual.

F.         W. A. Meekes, The prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology, 1967

1.         He pointed to the False Prophet tradition, whose common elements, deception, leading astray the elect by signs and wonders, and Jewish origin, are most often associated with the Antichrist in the literature.

2.         He has largely been ignored.

G.        J. Ernst, Die eschatologischen Gegenspieler in den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 1967

1.         Based on a limited study of STJ, though leaving out the DSS, he concludes that the Antichrist is only one of several end-time opponents, each having a rich tradition that sometimes overlap.

2.         The NT does not have a single concept of an end-time opponent but utilizes all of these traditions, sometimes juxtaposing them.

H.        Adela Yarbro Collins, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation, 1967

1.         She developed the Babylonian Combat Myth and showed how it permeates the book of Revelation.

2.         She finds the Antichrist only in contexts where the term Antichrist is used or there is a clear opponent to a Messianic figure.

I.          D. Flusser (writings between 1972-1992)

1.         He used STJ, including the DSS.

2.         He concludes that the Antichrist is the human manifestation of satanic powers who can be identified with Melkiresha (4Q280; 4Q544) and the son of the Most High (4Q246).

J.         Hans Burgmann (writings between 1974-1992)

1.         He used STJ, including the DSS.

2.         He concluded that the historical human figure, called by various names, who is the enemy of the DSS community, becomes the archetype of the eschatological Antichrist, a human being controlled by the evil one.

K.        William C. Weinrich, “Antichrist in the Early Church,” Concordia Theological Review, 1985

1.         Basing his research on the False Prophet motif and Israel as God’s chosen people, he concludes that since both beasts in Revelation parody Jesus, they can both be called Antichrist.

2.         He points out that the prefix anti- may mean “in place of” and not “against.” The early church used the term Antichrist as a weapon against heretics and not the Roman Empire or the Jews.

L.         Gregory C. Jenks, The Origin and Development of the Antichrist Myth, 1991

1.         The Antichrist is the “Endtyrant” who opposes Christ and his people, deceives many, using signs and wonders, teaches false doctrine, unleashed evil on the world, is proud and arrogant, claims divine honors, conquers vast territory and persecutes the people of God, but is destroyed in the end by Christ.

2.         Rejecting oral tradition, he accepts only elements which occur in a Messianic context where there is clear opposition to the Messiah.

3.         Based on his study of STJ, including the DSS, he concludes that there is no concept of an “Endtyrant” in STJ, especially in the DSS.

4.         The many strands of tradition are brought together as the Antichrist only in the NT and developed in Christian theology while later Jewish literature do not have an Antichrist but merge the Beliar and Nero Redividus traditions in a way that is distinct from Christianity.

M.       Bernard McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil, 1994

1.         He sees two sets of polarities in the literature: External-Internal and Dread-Deception.

2.         He delineates four separate traditions: Chaos Conflict, Satan, End-tyrant, and False Prophet.

O.        L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist, 1996

1.         He used STJ, including the DSS

2.         He concludes that the elements of the AD third century Antichrist never occur together in STJ and none of them occur everywhere, therefore Antichrist is a Christian invention.

P.         G. W. Lorein, The Antichrist Theme in the Intertestamental Period, 2003

1.         Frustrated with the narrow criteria of Jenks and Peerbolte, he denies that texts have to have opposition to the Messiah or contain the word ἀντίχριστος to refer to the Antichrist.

2.         The concept of Antichrist is derived from the OT, occurs in its fullness in STJ, and is linked to the concept of Messiah across all types of literature, though it is more prevalent in apocalyptic.

Q.        Stephen J. Viccio, The Legend of the Anti-Christ: A History, 2009

1.         He uses STJ, including the DSS, and the methodology of Gunkel and Boussett, adding the study of Caananite myths and the Persian conflict between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainya.

2.         He concludes that the Antichrist is the manifestation of Marduk or Angra Mainya with additional concepts added to the myth based on Caligula and Nero.