Toto

An actual historian on the term So the first historical antichrists were unnamed - and it is clear that there is not one antichrist, but many.

Marcion appears to fit this definition of the antchrist, but the name is not applied to him that we know of.

mountainman

The author is Professor of Classics and Christian Origins (*****warning****warning****warning) at the University of Texas at Austin. And he seems to have actually skipped out any discussion of the term in the fourth century. He jumps from Eusebius' "Early Christian History" material (eg: Polycrap) direct to the Middle Ages. His article is entitled "The Antichrist: An Historical Puzzle". It is puzzling why he omits the history of the period between Constantine and the Middle Ages. He jumps directly from his section on "Early Christian literature" to "The Bridge to Revelation". I imagine a professor of Christian Origins is entitled to do that.


That's right --- no names appear (with corroboration).
All is quiet on the Antichrist Front. The quest continues.
The quest finds an "Antichrist explosion" with Arius.

Tertullian alone dishes the term "antichrist" out to Marcion in his "Against Marcion". But a singular instance written by a single African Latin author during the Greek Second Sophistic can hardly hold weight against the myriad of indignant christian authors who hurl the term at Arius of Alexandria after the Council of Nicaea and during the Arian controversy.

mountainman

The Five Books Against Marcion, Book III by Tertullian
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. III, Anti-Marcion,
The Five Books Against Marcion, Book III
by Tertullian ,
translated by Peter Holmes

This suggests a link between the heresy to be associated with the antichrist and the heresy described here as docetism. Quite obviously there were people about would "refuse to confess Jesus came in the flesh." The heresiologists might classify these people as docetic heretics and if they were big enough to warrant ther attention, then the full blown "Antichrist Card" was played. We may meditate on the notion that the pathway to the antichrist described in the new testament is via the escalation of the docetic heresy.

mountainman

Lets be a little more specific about the non-Jews shall we? They were commonly called Greeks, you know, and read that language called Greek, you know, the one in which the uneducated apostles badly wrote for our benefit.

The quest for the Greek's belief in Christ was the main aim of the NT.
The quest had a catch 22.
The catch said that if you didnt believe in Christ then you were antichristian.
This appears as a case of massive religious separationism.

It appears that there may have been the possibility of a small flash of antichristian tendency in Marcion according to Tertullian. But the first major explosion of antichristian libel commences with the historical figure of Arius and the "council" of Nicaea.

How do we explain this?

jakejonesiv

The earliest historical antichrist: Simon bar Kochba, ca 135 CE. He was regarded the Messiah by Rabbi Akiva ben Joseph (Yer. Ta'anit, iv. 68d).

The false messiahs in Matthew 24:24 are literally pseudochristoi. But the author evidently has a specific person in view.

Under bar Kochba we see the first recorded instance in history of persecution of Christians by Jews.
"During the Jewish war that recently flamed up, the leader of the Jewish uprising, Bar Kochba, ordered the most severe of punishment only for those Christians who refused to deny Jesus Christ and revile him." Justin, Apol., 1.31.6.

The “Liar-Messiah” in Apocalypse of Peter also likely refers to Bar Kochba.
"This liar [i.e., Bar Kochba, or Bar Koziba] is not Christ. And
should they despise him, he will murder them with the sword and there will be many martyrs…And for this reason, those who die at his hand will be martyrs and will be counted among the good and righteous martyrs whose lives have pleased God."

See "The Synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13 par): A Document from the Time of Bar Kochba" Hermann Detering, p. 189 ff.

From the Christian persepctive, Simon bar Kochba was the first Historical Anti-Christ and Rabbi Akiva ben Joseph was the false prophet.

Best,
Jake Jones IV

mountainman

Thanks for the references Jake. I will reply separately to the use of Justin's Apologies to serve as a basis for an historical assessment of awarding an "Antichrist Medal" to the figure of Bar Kochba. In the interim however, quite fortuitously, you have cited a text which I located years ago, but for which I had lost my notes. It is a very intriguing gnostic text.

The Apocalypse of Peter
Translated by James Brashler and Roger A. Bullard
C14 dated to the year c.348 CE (+/- 60 years)

As the Savior was sitting in the temple in the three hundredth (year) of the covenant and the agreement of the tenth pillar, and being satisfied with the number of the living, incorruptible Majesty, he said to me,

"Peter, blessed are those above belonging to the Father,
who revealed life to those who are from the life, through me,
since I reminded they who are built on what is strong,
that they may hear my word, and distinguish words of unrighteousness
and transgression of law from righteousness,
as being from the height of every word of this Pleroma of truth,
having been enlightened in good pleasure by him
whom the principalities sought.

But they did not find him, nor was he mentioned among any generation of the prophets.

He has now appeared among these, in him who appeared,
who is the Son of Man, who is exalted above the heavens
in a fear of men of like essence.

What year of the common era would it have been if the Savior was sitting in the temple in the three hundredth (year) of the covenant? Did anyone promote the fear of God at this time? The text appears to suggest that Jesus appeared 300 years after the christian covenant.

jakejonesiv

Coins from the Bar Kochba era prominetly display the (hoped for) rebuilt temple.
Since the hope of rebuilding it ended with the defeat of Bar Kochba, it would be 135 CE. Three hundred years before would be about 165 BCE, the time of Antiochus who is the prototype of Antichrist.

This is where we find the covenant reference.

1 Maccabees 1:10-15 “From them came forth a sinful root, Antiochus Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king; he had been a hostage in Rome. He began to reign in the one hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks. In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many, saying ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us.’ This proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king. He authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem according to the Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.”

aa5874

Isn't Antiochus Epiphanes a protypical Jesus of the Pauline Gospel?

Paul's Jesus propagated abandoning of circumcision and joining with the Gentiles.

I think Paul's Jesus should have been awarded the Anti-Christ medal.

mountainman

Hi Jake,

(1) I find it difficult to conceive that the covenant reference in the Nag Hammadi Apocalypse of Peter which commences ...

As the Savior was sitting in the temple in the three hundredth (year) of the covenant ....

refers to the covenant whereby the Jewish temples were Hellenised in the epoch BCE. Surely the Apocalypse of Peter is a text dealing with a Pauline reverie experienced and documented by Peter and a post-resurrection appearance of the Jesus character.

(2) The NHC are C14 dated to the mid-fourth century. Christian apologists appear to be certain in all their many conjectures that these texts were in circulation centuries before this epoch. To be more specific, the NHC texts "must have been" in circulation earlier --- centuries earlier --- by vile despicable unmentionable unnamable docetic and gnostic heretics of the worst variety.

This orthodox and apologetic certainty -- following heresiological threats by Eusebius et al --- remains utterly conjectural. Given the known massive social and religious and political revolutions which occurred during the fourth century I find it difficult (if not impossible) to conceive of fourth century publishers of "Buried and Hidden forbidden books" taking the time to be concerned over historical and religious issues which themselves are utterly remote from the fourth century.

(3) The "Liar-Messiah" reference is interesting. Why is it called this? Does anyone know? When we read the text, Jesus appears to say some very incredible things in Peter's dream, such as taking massive pot-shots at the current regime of bishops and deacons. When did the christian bishop and deacons start turning up on the chronological barometer if not very late? Jesus basically says that the church fathers are bullshit. Why would Jesus say the bishops are bullshit?

""And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals."

(4) Anti-Christ Medal for Bar Kochba?

We have one singular source in antiquity, the christian "apologist" known as Justin Martyr. That from the Christian persepctive, Simon bar Kochba was the first Historical Anti-Christ, cannot be corroborated outside of this christian apologist Justin. Noone else seems to have noticed. We require at least some corroboration on the award of the prestigous "Antichrist Medal" in a strict ancient historical sense. Therefore we must reluctantly dismiss Bar Kochba's claim via Justin Martyr for the award of the "Historical Antichrist Medal". The successful claimant must be corroborated by multiple sources.


(5) Authorship date for the NHC Apocalypse of Peter as the C14 date: 348 CE

Along with Occam, I find it is reasonable to think that the authorship of many tracts in the NHC was contemporary with its date of publication found to be c.348 CE (plus or minus 60 years). That it is reasonable to consider that the NHC Apocalypse of Peter was authored in the early to mid fourth century.

And that the reference in the three hundredth (year) of the [New Testament Christian] covenant means precisely that. That is taken from the resurrection-through-the-clouds-event at stardate 33 CE and adding another 300 years in the captains log makes the year stardate 333 CE. (Arius was still alive)

mountainman

The origins and early development of the Antichrist myth (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Gregory Charles Jenks. Here's a link to the same book at
google books . It appears to deal with rise of the antichrist myth during the early centuries of the CE. One of series of pages available at Amazon display the sources. Quite a few to "antichrist" in the relevant period. It was a salient issue. But nobody was naming names in an historical sense (as "antichrist") in large measures and in a corroborative fashion until the fourth century.

For those who entertain the "Christ Myth" theory, this author appears to outline the evolution of the "Antichrist Myth" theory in the textual evidence in a comprehensive manner. We may therefore surmise that there must have been a parallel appearance of the christ myth and the antichrist myth! What a tangled textual web was weaved by the "Early Christian Apologists".