Antihristul - Mărturii ale Bibliei și tradiției

by Wilhelm Bousset

In eshatologia crestina, Antihrist este socotit intruchiparea raului. Cea mai veche mentiune a acestui nume in literatura crestina eshatologica apare in Epistolele I,2 si II,7 ale Sfantului Ioan (niciodata, insa, in Cartea Apocalipsei, cum se crede indeobste). Conceptia potrivit careia Antihrist este cel ce va ajunge sa stapaneasca lumea, prin pacat si faradelege, cu putin inainte de a doua Venire a Domnului, poate fi identificata si in eshatologia iudaica, indeosebi in profetia lui Daniel ce dateaza din epoca macabeeana. Unii cercetatori socotesc ca legenda Antihristuluieste o prelungire, modificata si antropomorfizata, a vechiului mit babilonian al Dragonului. Subiectul acesta este atat de complex incat putem spune ca avem de-a face cu o naratie ce reuneste cele mai vechi marturii ale unei umanitati care este tulburata de apropierea Judecatii de Apoi si spera deopotriva intr-un viitor mai bun.

256 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1895

Reviews

[Erick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first read this book quite a long time ago. It had to be sometime in my early twenties when I was first really studying the Bible and associated scholarly works. I do credit this book with helping to spur on my interest in apocalypticism.

The thing that I think is the most interesting and the most compelling aspect of this book is the author’s contention that Christian tradition had two distinct strands regarding the Antichrist. One was seemingly a kingly or imperialistic strain, and the other a priestly strain. This is quite fascinating because even Jewish tradition regarding the messiah was often dualistic as well. A Levitical messiah and a Judahite messiah are both found in Jewish sources. This does give some context to a New Testament book like the Epistle to the Hebrews where it was understood to be necessary that Jesus fulfill both messianic aspects. That Jesus was from the tribe of Judah was accepted and readily understood to be relevant to his kingly messianic role in the early traditions of the church. But not being from a Levitical line necessitated a theology addressing Jesus’ priestly role that didn’t require descent from that tribe. The author of this Epistle saw Jesus as embodying a spiritual priesthood i.e. a priesthood of Melchizedek. I don’t need to digress too much here but suffice it to say that even the traditions regarding the Antichrist show the same kind of dualistic tendencies. I absolutely do concur with the author that the relevant apocalyptic texts do support such a conclusion. That Christians by and large have not noticed this is puzzling. It may have a lot to do with wide and general ignorance of Jewish religious thought and an ignorance of non-canonical apocrypha and pseudepigraphic works.

Even though the term “Antichrist” is certainly a Christian term, that a figure like this was theorized in Judaism even prior to Christianity can hardly be doubted. The roots may go back to traditions about Nimrod, but the most obvious early Antichrist types were Manasseh and Antiochus Epiphanes. It was the profanation of the Jewish temple that inspired Daniel’s “abomination of desolation.” Both Manasseh and Antiochus were said to have brought pagan images into the Jewish temple. The profanation of the temple may have precluded the destruction of the temple in both these cases. One can also detect even in passages that Christians have often held were about Satan (e.g. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28) a reference to a human ruler being the embodiment of an apostate heavenly power. That emperors like Caligula and Nero were also Antichrist types seems fairly obvious when one is acquainted with apocalyptic thought. The issue is, however, that the New Testament seems to suggest that an Antichrist would be accepted by the Jews who rejected Jesus. This seems to be the intended meaning when Jesus says in John 5:43 that “if another comes in his own name you will accept him.” Also, there seems to be another strong suggestion during the trial of Jesus where a criminal named Barabbas (literally meaning “Son of the father” in Aramaic), is released by request instead of Jesus. I think it hardly likely that an imperialistic Neronic style Antichrist would have appealed to religious Jews in Jesus’ day. This strongly suggests a different kind of Antichrist, i.e. a priestly one, was behind this tradition. It may be that an Antichrist appealing to gentiles was the imperialistic one and the one appealing to Jews was the priestly one. We get the name Antichrist from John’s first epistle, and maybe it should be puzzling that Christians have had a tendency to believe that there was only one Antichrist when John in the very same epistle held that there were “many Antichrists.” (1 John 2:18).

This subject is quite fascinating, and I could be self-indulgent and delve into it more, but rather than taxing the reader’s patience, I will simply say that this book does a good job of laying out the case of two Antichrists. Some of the digressions above are my own thoughts but they do seem to back up the theory overall. This book was written in the late 19th century and I should note that, like much Biblical scholarship in the last 200 years, these kinds of books aren’t meant to be theological tracts. They are textual studies by people that are often not even Christian or religious. They still carry their own biases, just as theological works often do. If one goes into reading these works in the proper context, one can still gain much from the study. One will always need to separate the wheat from the chaff as it were.

[Alan Fuller · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bousset combs through medieval texts to trace the legend of antichrist. He imagines an oral tradition that bypasses the apostolic fathers and begins to emerge about the fourth century.

"At the same time it is by no means to be supposed that the later documents merely introduce further embellishments into the still extant earlier materials. On the contrary, it is precisely from them that we obtain much supplementary matter needed to fill up the gaps and omissions in the earlier and more fragmentary documents. How is this to be explained ? As seems to me the explanation lies in the fact that in many cases the eschatological revelations have been passed on, not in written records, but in oral tradition, as an esoteric doctrine handled with fear and trembling. p.30"

There is a wealth of eschatological teaching in the Apostolic Fathers such as Hermas and Barnabas, but Bousset easily dismisses it.

"The eschatological material occurring in the Apostolic Fathers and apologists is too slight for consideration. p.94"

"A close study of the effect of Revelation on the Fathers, as seen in their expositions, almost produces the impression that these writers possessed no living eschatological imagery, and that such imagery lay dormant till reawakened in mediaeval times. p.186"

Bousset believes Revelation is a merger of the old Babylonian dragon myth with the Neronic saga.

"To me the Antichrist legend seems a simple incarnation of that old Dragon myth, which has in the first instance nothing to do with particular political powers and occurrences. p.144"

"Thus it came about that the elements of the old Dragon myth became incorporated in the Neronic saga, so marvellous is the tendency of such currents of legendary matter to merge in a common stream. p.185"

IMO Bousset is a good example of bad 19th century scholarship.