Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Antichrist Legend

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    The Antichrist Legend

    Continued from prior post↑

    From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (page 27):
    Chapter II Statement of the Problem


    Bearing this in view, it becomes extremely remarkable that, despite the after-effect of Revelation, the assumption of the Jewish origin of the Antichrist should acquire such general acceptance as to be so unanimously applied to the solution of the really puzzling passage in 2 Thessalonians. How short-lived, on the other hand, was the notion that the relations in Revelation had reference to Nero, and how infinitely varied and manifold are the interpretations of the passage in question!

    To be continued...

    Comment


    • #47
      Continued from prior post↑

      From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (page 27):
      Chapter II Statement of the Problem


      Here we are again confronted with the puzzling assumption of a Jewish Antichrist who appears in Jerusalem. Hippolytus, like Irenaeus, shows (chapter xliii.) that the two witnesses (Rev. xi.) will be Elias and Enoch. He has of course little difficulty in quoting Scripture for the return of Elias; but he no where tells us how he discovered that Enoch was to be the associate of Elias.

      To be continued...

      Comment


      • #48
        The Antichrist Legend

        Continued from prior post↑

        From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (pages 27-28):
        Chapter II Statement of the Problem


        This assumption also that Elias and Enoch are the two witnesses is so prevalent in Patristic traditional lore that scarcely any other names are mentioned. How is the firm belief in this traditional lore to be explained? In support of his theory, Hippolytus in one place actually quotes as an inspired authority a document absolutely unknown to us (chapter xv.): "And another prophet says: he [the Antichrist] will gather all his power from the rising to the setting of the sun. Those whom he has called and whom he has not called will go to him. He will make white the sea with the sails of his ships, and the plain black with the shields of his hosts. And whoso will war with him shall fall by the sword." This passage he repeats in chapter liv., and in this and the following chapter he brings together specially remarkable statements regarding the Antichrist, statements the evidence for which we vainly seek in the Old or New Testament. We may assuredly regard as unconvincing the occurrence of the curious combination from Daniel vii. and xi., implying that on his first appearance the Antichrist will overcome the kings of Egypt, of Libya, and Ethiopia, a combination with which again is connected the interpretation of Revelation xvii. In these details, however, Hippolytus is dependent on Irenaeus.

        To be continued...

        Comment


        • #49
          The Antichrist Legend

          Continued from prior post↑

          From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (page 28):
          Chapter II Statement of the Problem


          It is again still more difficult to understand how Hippolytus knows that the Antichrist's next exploit will be the destruction of Tyre and Berytus (Beyrút). But so much will suffice to show that in his treatise on the Antichrist Hippolytus is dependent on a tradition which no doubt has something in common with many eschatological parts of the Old and New Testaments, but which none the less stands out quite distinctly as an independent concrete tradition. In fact he may well have borrowed the legend from some document quoted by him as "a prophet."

          To be continued...

          Comment


          • #50
            The Antichrist Legend

            Continued from prior post↑

            From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (page 29):
            Chapter II Statement of the Problem


            As a second case in point I may appeal to the Commentary of Victorinus. On the foreboding of the famine under the third seal this writer observes: "But properly speaking the passage has reference to the times of the Antichrist, when a great famine will prevail." The flight of the woman in the second half of Revelation xii. he refers to the flight of the 144,000, who are supposed to have received the faith through the preaching of Elias, supporting his interpretation with Luke xxi. 21. The water which the Dragon casts out of his mouth after the woman is taken to mean that the Antichrist sends out a host to persecute her, while the earth opening her mouth signifies the woman's miraculous deliverance from the host by the Lord.

            To be continued...
            Last edited by John Reece; 08-14-2015, 11:04 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              The Antichrist Legend

              Continued from prior post↑

              From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (page 29):
              Chapter II Statement of the Problem


              Although holding fast to the Neronic interpretation, Victorinus connects it in a remarkable way with another. Nero will appear under another name as the Antichrist, and then he continues (chapter xiii.): "He will lust after no women and acknowledge no God of his fathers. For he will be unable to beguile the people of the circumcision, unless he appears as the champion of the law. Nor will he summon the saints to the worship of idols, but only to accept circumcision, should he succeed in leading any astray. Lastly, he will so act that he will be called Christ by them. The false prophet (Rev. xiii. 11 et seq.) will contrive to have a golden statue set up to him in the Temple of Jerusalem. The raising of the dead to life is mentioned among the wonders wrought by the false prophet."

              To be continued...

              Comment


              • #52
                The Antichrist Legend

                Continued from prior post↑

                From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (page 30):
                Chapter II Statement of the Problem


                Revelation xiii. 2 is explained as indicating the captains or leaders of the Antichrist, who are overtaken by the wrath of God in xiv. 20. Here again we see what a wealth of special traditions is revealed by such interpretation. And again we stand before the figure of the Jewish Antichrist, which is here rarely interwoven with the other figure of Nero redivivus.

                To be continued...

                Comment


                • #53
                  The Antichrist Legend

                  Continued from prior post↑

                  From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (pages 30-31):
                  Chapter II Statement of the Problem


                  But to avoid going twice over the same ground, I will break off at this point. Both examples sufficiently bear out the argument as above stated, and it will be enough here to assure the reader that the demonstration might still be carried to a great length. Meanwhile I would draw attention to a few considerations. The farther we advance into the centuries, the richer and more fruitful become the sources. 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. Hence it is that not till later times does the tradition come to light in all its abundance. We may learn from Hippolytus (chapter xxix.) what in his time was thought of traditional lore: "This, beloved, I communicate to you with fear.... For if the blessed prophets before us, although they knew it, were unwilling openly to proclaim it in order not to prepare any perplexity for the souls of men, but imparted it secretly in parables and enigmas, saying 'whoso readeth let him understand,' how much more danger do we run of we openly utter what was couched by them in covert language!"

                  To be continued...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    The Antichrist Legend

                    Continued from prior post↑

                    From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (page 31):
                    Chapter II Statement of the Problem


                    With this may be compared Sibyll, X. 290: "But not all know this, for not all things are for all." It is very significant That Snlpicius Severus (Hist., II. 14) wrote down the Antichrist legend from an oral deliverance of S. Martin of Tours. Hence the secret teaching concerning the Antichrist was still in the time of S. Martin passed on from mouth to mouth. An interesting passage also occurs in Origin on 2 Thessalonians ii. 1 et seq.: "Because perhaps amongst the Jew were certain persons professing to know about the Last Things either from Scripture or from hidden sources, therefore he writes this, teaching his disciples that they may believe no one making such professions" (in Matthaeum Comm, IV. 329). In Commodian's Carmen Apologeticum there also appears the line: "About which, however, I submit a few hidden things of which I have read."

                    To be continued...
                    Last edited by John Reece; 08-18-2015, 11:03 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      The Antichrist Legend

                      Continued from prior post↑

                      From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (pages 31-32):
                      Chapter II Statement of the Problem


                      In the following chapters I give a survey of the sources here consulted. Besides the Fathers, the later and latest Christian Apocalypses come naturally under consideration. But of course much of this material is still inaccessible, and the Syriac, Coptic, and Slavic manuscripts will yet yield rich fruits. As, however, the tradition of the Antichrist legend is extremely persistent, the still missing documents will change but little in the general character of the tradition.

                      To be continued...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        The Antichrist Legend

                        Continued from prior post↑

                        From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (page 33):
                        Chapter II Statement of the Problem


                        The first group of documents bearing on the subject is connected with that highly interesting Apocalypse which was published in 1890 by Caspari.

                        As an aside at this point, yesterday I received from Amazon.com a copy of the 1989 doctoral thesis written by Gregory C. Jenks, titled The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth, which is about the same tradition which Bousset termed The Antichrist Legend. I was intrigued by the fact that the juxtaposed titles confirm the fact that when it comes to the tradition of the Antichrist, "legend" and "myth" are exact synonyms.

                        To be continued...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          The Antichrist Legend

                          Continued from prior post↑

                          From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (pages 33-35):
                          Chapter II Statement of the Problem


                          From chapter i. to iv. the treatise has rather the character of a sermon, after which in chapter v. the Apocalypse is related in the usual way in a simple quiet flow of speech. In the very first chapter a clue to its dates is afforded in the following sentences: "And amid all these things are the wars of the Persians ― in those days will two brothers come to the Roman kingdom, and with one mind they stand forward (?); but because one precedes the other, schism will arise between them." Caspari has brought proof to show that these allusions indicate the time of the emperors Valentinian and Valens, the first of whom was raised to the purple in 364, and the second soon after chosen by his brother to share the throne with him. "Schism will arise between them" is referred by Caspari to the division of the empire, which took place soon after. The question might nevertheless be asked, whether with these words the apocalyptic writer does not forebode some dissension foreseen by him, but which has not yet come to pass, whence the future tense "will arise." Caspari, however, is right in supposing the passage was not written before the close of Valentinian's reign, or about the year 373, when the war of the Persians broke out again. At the same time he raises serious doubts against the inference that the treatise was written about 373. For in that case we should have to assume that the writer had projected his own time into the future, after the manner of the Sibylline utterances. But as this Sibylline method is not elsewhere to be detected in the whole treatise, he thinks it more probable that the writer has quite clumsily interwoven some extraneous (Sibylline) matter into the text. If so, we should have nothing but the age of the extant manuscripts to help us in determining the age of the work.

                          To be continued...

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            The Antichrist Legend

                            Continued from prior post↑

                            From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (pages 33-35):
                            Chapter II Statement of the Problem


                            But all these assumptions of Caspari are groundless. A mere cursory perusal of the document makes it tolerably clear that the author simply reproduces not a contemporary but an early prophecy regarding the Antichrist, merely superadding a short historical and exhortative introduction. This view will be confirmed by the comparative study of the sources appended below.

                            To be continued...

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              The Antichrist Legend

                              Time out.

                              I have only a few minor, insignificant, reservations about details in the following blog post which I just now found on the internet. For the most part, the author expresses my view with regard to the subject of "Antichrist".

                              I am inserting this link into the thread as a way of filing it for future reference, as well as to provide readers of the thread with supplemental information with regard to the thesis of the thread ― which is that, except for what is said in four verses in the 1st and 2nd letters of John, supposed references to Antichrist in the Bible are projections onto/into biblical texts matters of myth/legend, rather than biblical prophecy or apostolic teaching.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                The Antichrist Legend

                                Continued from prior post↑

                                From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (page 35):
                                The author speaks in his own person only in the first chapter, where he partly brings the ensuing revelation into connection with current events, partly introduces it with commonplace exhortations. Thus we see that the first chapter alone is available for determining the period. Nor is it easy to imagine that a writer living centuries later would have accepted such a distinct earlier prophecy had he not seen its fulfilment in his own days. In this Apocalypse on the Antichrist we have accordingly a document composed about the year 373.

                                To be continued...
                                Last edited by John Reece; 08-23-2015, 07:56 AM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X