ANTICHRIST. The earliest mention of the name Anti christ, which was probably first coined in Christian eschatological literature is in the Epistles of St. John (I. ii., 18, 22, iv. 3; II. 7), and it has since come into universal use. The conception, para phrased in this word, of a mighty ruler who will appear at the end of time, and whose essence will be enmity to God (Dan. xi. 36; cf . II. Thess. ii. 4; o ComKeIM€vos ), is older, and traceable to Jewish eschatology. Its origin is to be sought in the first place in the prophecy of Daniel, written at the beginning of the Mac cabean period. The historical figure who served as a model for the "Antichrist" was Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, the persecutor of the Jews, and he has impressed indelible traits upon the concep tion. Since then ever-recurring characteristics of this figure (cf. especially Dan. xi. 4o, etc.) are, that he would appear as a mighty ruler at the head of gigantic armies, that he would destroy three rulers (the three horns, Dan. vii. 8, 24), persecute the saints (vii., 25), rule for three and a half years (vii. 25, etc.) and subject the temple of God to a horrible devastation (36iXvyµa TE ni. c u€ws ). When the end of the world foretold by Daniel did not take place, but the book of Daniel retained its validity as a sacred scripture which foretold future things, the personality of the tyrant who was God's enemy disengaged itself from that of Antiochus IV., and became merely a figure of prophecy, which was applied now to one and now to another historical phenomenon. Thus for the author of the Psalms of Solomon (c. 6o B.c.), Pompey, who destroyed the independent rule of the Maccabees and stormed Jerusalem, was the Adversary of God (cf. ii. 26, etc.) ; so too, the tyrant whom the Ascension of Moses (c. A.D. 3o) expects at the end of all things, possesses besides the traits of Antiochus IV., those of Herod the Great. A further influence on the development of the eschatological imagination of the Jews was exercised by such a figure as that of the emperor Caligula (A.D. 37-41) who is known to have given the order, never carried out, to erect his statue in the temple of Jerusalem. In the little Jewish Apocalypse, the existence of which is assumed by many scholars, which in Mark xiii. and Matt. xxiv. is combined with the words of Christ to form the great eschatological discourse, the prophecy of the "abomination of desolation" (Mk. xiii. 1411) may have originated in this episode of Jewish history. Later Jewish and Christian writers of apocalypses saw in Nero the tyrant of the end of time. The author of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (or his source), cap. 36-40, speaks in quite general terms of the last ruler of the end of time. In 4 Ezra v. 6 also is found the allusion : regnabit quern non sperant.
The roots of this eschatological fancy are to be sought per haps still deeper in a purely mythological and speculative expecta tion of a battle at the end of days between God and the devil, which has no reference whatever to historical occurrences. This idea has its original source i.i the apocalypses of Iran, for these are based upon the conflict between Ahura-Mazda (Auramazda, Ormazd) and Angro-Mainyush (Ahriman) and its consummation at the end of the world. This Iranian dualism is proved to have penetrated into the late Jewish eschatology from the beginning of the 1st century before Christ, and did so probably still earlier. Thus the opposition between God and the devil already plays a part in the Jewish groundwork of the Testaments of the Patri archs, which was perhaps composed at the end of the period of the Maccabees. In this the name of the devil appears besides the usual form (oaravas, Scaj3oXos) especially as Belial (Beliar, probably, from Ps. xviii. 4, where the rivers of Belial are spoken of, originally a god of the underworld), a name which also plays a part in the Antichrist tradition. In the Ascension of Moses, we already hear, at the beginning of the description of the latter time (x., i.) ; "And then will God's rule be made manifest over all his creatures, then will the devil have an end" (cf. Mt. xii. 28; Lk. xi. 20; Joh. xii. 31, xiv. 3o, xvi. 11). This conception of the strife of God with the devil was further interwoven, bef ore its introduction into the Antichrist myth, with another idea of dif ferent origin, namely, the myth derived from the Babylonian religion, of the battle of the supreme God (Marduk) with the dragon of chaos (Tiamat), originally a myth of the origin of things, which, later perhaps, was changed into an eschatological one, again under Iranian influence. Thus it comes that the devil, the opponent of God, appears in the end often also in the form of a terrible dragon-monster; this appears most clearly in Rev. xii. Now it is possible that the whole conception of Antichrist has its final roots in this already complicated myth, that the f orm of the mighty adversary of God is but the equivalent in human form of the devil or of the dragon of chaos. In any case, how ever, this myth has exercised a formative influence on the con ception of Antichrist. For only thus can we explain how his figure acquires numerous superhuman and ghostly traits, which cannot be explained by any particular historical phenomenon on which it may have been based. Thus the figure of Antiochus IV. has already become superhuman, when in Dan. viii. 1 o, it is said that the little horn "waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground." Similarly Pompey, in the second psalm of Solomon, is obviously represented as the dragon of chaos, and his figure exalted into myth. Without this assumption of a continual infusion of mytho logical conceptions, we cannot understand the figure of Antichrist. Finally, it must be mentioned that Antichrist receives, as least in the later sources, the name originally proper to the devil him self.
From the Jews, Christianity took over the idea. It is present quite unaltered in certain passages, specifically traceable to Juda ism, e.g. (Rev. xi.). "The Beast that ascendeth out of the bot tomless pit" and surrounded by a mighty host of nations slays the "two witnesses" in Jerusalem, is the entirely superhuman Jewish conception of Antichrist. Even if the beast (ch. xiii.) which rises from the sea at the summons of the devil, be inter preted as the Roman empire, and, especially, as any particular Roman ruler, yet the original form of the malevolent tyrant of the latter time is completely preserved.
A fundamental change of the whole idea from the specifically Christian point of view, then, is signified by the conclusion of ch. ii. of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. There can, of course, be no doubt as to the identity of the "man of sin, the son of perdition" here described with the dominating figure of Jewish eschatology (cf. ii. 3, etc., o avOponros Tijs avoµias i.e., Beliar [ ?] o allusion that follows to Dan. xi. 36). But Antichrist here appears as a tempter who works by signs and wonders (ii. 9) and seeks to obtain divine honours; it is further signified that this "man of sin" will obtain credence, more especially among the Jews, because they have not accepted the truth. The conception, moreover, has become almost more superhuman than ever (cf. ii. 4, "showing himself that he is God"). The destruction of the Adversary is drawn from Isaiah xi. 4, where it is said of the Messiah : "with the breath of His lips shall He slay the wicked." The idea that Antichrist was to establish himself in the temple of Jerusalem (ii. 4) is very enig matical, and has not yet been explained. The "abomination of desolation" has naturally had its influence upon it; possibly also the experience of the time of Caligula (see above). Remarkable also is the allusion to a power which still retards the revelation of Antichrist (II. Thess. ii. 6, etc., To Kar xov, O KarSXcwv), an allusion which, in the tradition of the Fathers of the Church, came to be universally, and probably correctly, referred to the Roman empire. In this then consists the significant turn given by St. Paul in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians to the whole conception, namely, in the substitution for the tyrant of the lat ter time who should persecute the Jewish people of a pseudo Messianic figure, who, establishing himself in the temple of God, should find credence and a following precisely among the Jews. And while the originally Jewish idea led straight to the concep tion, set forth in Revelation, of the Roman empire or its ruler as Antichrist, here on the contrary, it is probably the Roman empire that is the power which still retards the reign of Antichrist.
With this, the expectation of such an event at last separates itself from any connection with historical fact, and becomes purely ideal. In this process of transformation of the idea, which has become of importance for the history of the world, is revealed probably the genius of Paul, or at any rate, that of the young Christianity which was breaking its ties with Judaism and estab lishing itself in the world of the Roman empire.
This version of the figure of Antichrist, who may now really for the first time be described by this name, appears to have been at once widely accepted in Christendom. The idea that the Jews would believe in Antichrist, as punishment for not having believed in the true Christ, seems to be expressed by the author of the fourth gospel (v. 43). The conception of Antichrist as a perverter of men, leads naturally to his connection with false doctrine (I. John ii. 18, 22 ; iv. 3 ; II. John 7) . The Teaching of the Apostles (xvi. 4) describes his form in the same way as II. Thes salonians (Kai TOTE 4atv1urerat 6 orrXa* WS vi en Oeo0 Kai rote?. cr p eia Kai ripara). In the late Christian Sibylline frag ment (iii. 63, etc.) also, "Beliar" appears above all as a worker of wonders, this figure having possibly been influenced by that of Simon Magus. Finally the author of the Apocalypse of St. John also has made use of the new conception of Antichrist as a wonder-worker and seducer, and has set his figure beside that of the "first" Beast which was for him the actual embodiment of Antichrist (xiii. 11, etc.). Since this second Beast could not ap pear along with the first as a power demanding worship and directly playing the part of Antichrist, he made out of him the false prophet (xvi. 13, xix. 20, XX. 1o) who seduces the inhabitants of the earth to worship the first Beast, and probably interpreted this figure as applying to the Roman provincial priesthood. (See