ANTICHRIST. – The adversary of Christ who, at the end of time, will seduce many Christians with satanic wonders and deceits, and will finally be annihilated by Christ at His parousia (v.). The term ἀντίχριστος («anti-Messiah») which occurs four times in the New Testament, implies the double sense of the prefix ἀντί: both replacement (as in Philo’s ἀντίθεος «god-opposed»; whereas in Homer ἀντίθεος has a laudatory sense: «godlike, similar to God»), and opposition (as in ἀντίθεος, ἀντίθεος). The Antichrist is the chief enemy of Christ, whose dignity and dominion he usurps, or attempts to usurp.
The concept, clarified in the Pauline and Johannine writings, is only embryonic in the Old Testament. From the very beginning of the «protoevangel» (Gen. 3:15), the religious struggle is outlined between the Messiah at the head of the just and Satan with his satellites.
The Prophets highlight the hostility of the Gentiles, whose kings represent peoples rather than individuals (cf. Is. 34): «Pharaoh» is the first king, an enemy vanquished by Jahweh; followed by the king of Babylon (Is. 14:4-17; 21:1-10), Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Pompey. These powerful enemies of Jahweh, whom the Messianic King will subdue (Ps. 2 and 109), when transposed onto the eschatological plane, become types of the Antichrist. From the time of the exile, in the prophetic descriptions of the «end times», the aggression and defeat of the enemy of God dominate, whose notion is increasingly defined as opposition to the theocracy of Israel, conceived as the Kingdom of God. Ezekiel already sketches the features of the Antichrist in the oracles against Tyre (28:2, 9) and against various surrounding kings (32), and in the allegory of Gog, the fierce assailant who is annihilated with his forces on the mountains of Israel (38-39), giving the first «personification of the Antichrist» (E. Tobac, *Les prophètes d'Israël*, II, Malines [1921], p. 417). Joel (3) and Zechariah (1:7-14; 5:5-11; 12; 14:1-19) reinforce the antithesis between the two kingdoms, divine and satanic: the victory over the enemy fills the great «day of Jahweh»; yet they do not name a leader of the coalition of the powers of evil.
Daniel presents Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the typical monster of iniquity (7:8; 8:9-14, 23-26; [9:27]; 11:21-45), who with cunning and violence realizes the height of impiety predicted for the end times. J. Knabenbauer (*Comment. in Dan. proph.*, Paris 1897, pp. 192, 267) argues, citing the authority of many Fathers, that Dan. 7:8 and 9:27 speaks of the Antichrist; in contrast, S. R. Driver (*The Book of Daniel*, Cambridge 1912, p. xxvii) and J. A. Montgomery (*The Book of Daniel*, Edinburgh 1927, p. 83) affirm that it is entirely inaccurate to speak of a Danielic Antichrist. In reality, Daniel typically predicts, in Antiochus IV, the Antichrist (J. Göttsberger, *Das Buch Daniel*, Bonn 1929, p. 93; J. B. Pelt, *Histoire de l'A. T.*, II, 7th ed., Paris 1925, pp. 357-83). Henceforth, the framework of the eschatological opposition to the Kingdom of God and the future enemy of God will be modeled on the Danielic schema: the enemy of Israel is increasingly profiled as the enemy of God, until in the New Testament God and the anti-God (the Messiah and the anti-Messiah) remain alone on the field.
In the «Jewish apocalypses», meanwhile, the political aspect of the enemy of God remains, namely the enemy of the Jews, i.e., Rome, with which the pagan world is now identified. The Roman oppressor (Pompey) in the Psalms of Solomon 17 is par excellence «the sinner», «the impious one», indeed the «dragon». In 4 Ezra 5:6, «he who dwells on earth shall reign, whom the inhabitants of the earth do not expect»: this unwelcome one seems to be the Antichrist (B. Vinet, *Die Apokalypse des Esra und des Baruch*, Leipzig 1924, p. 26); cf. Apocalypse of Baruch (Syriac), 36 and 40. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Levi 18:12) and the Assumption of Moses 8, the antimessianic struggle is waged by Beliar; in 3 Sibylline Oracles 63-76, Beliar brings back Nero. The revived Nero (cf. Tacitus, *Hist.*, I, 2; II, 8; Suetonius, *Nero*, 40, 37) appears in 4 Sibylline Oracles 109-14, 137-45; 5 Sibylline Oracles 1-51, 215-246, 361 sg.; 8 Sibylline Oracles 146-58; in the Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-18, Beliar is incarnate in a king (Nero). From these writings, R. H. Charles deduces that around AD 90 the myths of Beliar and Nero «redivivus» are fused.
It is therefore certain that ancient «Jewish literature does not know a personal Antichrist» (J. Bonsirven) nor a human Antichrist properly speaking. Hence the thesis of W. Bousset, according to which the Antichrist is a Jewish legend accepted by Christians, lacks foundation. In the apocrypha, Beliar (who is not an eschatological entity) and other incarnations of evil do not appear in direct antimessianic struggle; indeed, with the appearance of the Messiah and His Kingdom they vanish. A kind of Antichrist Armillus (already in Targum Jonathan to Is. 11:4, where it seems interpolated), which belongs, however, to the Haggadic literature of the 8th century AD (D. Castelli, *Il Messia secondo gli Ebrei*, Florence 1871, pp. 239 ff.). Cf. H. L. Strack-P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Munich 1926, pp. 637-40. The eschatology of Christian apocrypha, on the other hand, gives great prominence to the Antichrist, whom the parousia of Jesus will annihilate (Apocalypse of Elijah, 2nd or 3rd century).
In the New Testament, the nationalistic perspective that identifies «enemy of God» and Gentiles disappears. Antimessianism becomes, rather, a sad characteristic of the Jews (Acts 4:24-32; 1 Thess. 2:14-16; 4th Gospel; Apoc. 2:9; 3:9). The Gospels do not mention an individual Antichrist. Jesus foretells many pseudochrists (cf. Deut. 18:20) and pseudoprophets (Mt. 24:11, 25; Mk. 13:22; Jn. 5:43b), whose doctrines and deceitful wonders will lead many astray: these stand to the Antichrist as the second Beast of Apoc. 13 stands to the first Beast. But in 1 Jn. the pseudoprophet (4:1-3) is identified with the Antichrist (2:22: identical traits); cf. Apoc. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10. The Fathers directly apply to the Antichrist Jn. 5:43b; e.g., Origen (*Tractatus de libris ss. Scripturarum*, ed. Batiffol, Paris 1900, p. 116).
The Antichrist appears explicitly in 2 Thess. 2 (c. AD 52) as «the man of sin»: vv. 3-5 describe him as anti-God, vv. 6-12 as anti-Christ. The adversary (ὁ ἀντικείμενος) of God is «the son of perdition, who exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, to the point of taking his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as God» (v. 4). For now he is restrained by a living and rational power (τὸ κατέχον, ὁ κατέχων), and thus carries out his iniquitous work in secret (τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας); when the obstacle is removed (at the end of time) there will occur «the apostasy»: the lawless one (ὁ ἀνομίας) «will be revealed in all his power, through Satan, with all kinds of false signs and deceits for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved» (vv. 9-12); but Jesus will appear and destroy the lawless one (v. 8): two opposing «parousiai» are contrasted. Here, as already understood by the Pseudo-Barnabas, Justin (*C. Tryph.*, 32, 110), Irenaeus (*Adv. Haer.*, V, 25, 4; 28, 2) and Hippolytus, the Antichrist is meant («Significari Antichristum nullus ambigit»: St. Augustine, *De Civ. Dei*, 20, 19), whom the Apostle describes with the features of Antiochus IV as expressed by Dan. 9:35-45; 11:21-22, 1 (J. B. Orchard). Paul distinguishes two periods: already now the Antichrist exists and works secretly; but at the end he will have full freedom of action (cf. Apoc. 17:8; 20:3, b. 7), yet after a brief triumph he will be vanquished by Jesus (cf. Apoc. 20:3 [«modico tempore»], 8-9).
Similarly, John, the only hagiographer who uses the term ἀνέχειστος (four times in the first two epistles), distinguishes the two times; but for his parenthetical purpose he insists on the present, whereas Paul had to illustrate to the Thessalonians “apostasy” as a sign of the end. John states in the epistles that the Antichrist “is already in the world,” indeed that there are already many (1 John 2:18; 4:3; 2 John 7). He alludes to the eschatological expectation (1 John 2:18; 4:3), adding that the present presence of deceivers, the present presence of deceivers, the present presence of deceivers, the present presence of deceivers (1 John 2:18); the impostors who deny Christ are moved by “the spirit of the Antichrist” (1 John 4:3), that is, by Satan. The Antichrist is like the ideal type; in reality he is manifested in a plurality of opponents to Christ, artisans of the “final apostasy” (cf. 1 Tim 4:1-2; 2 Tim 3:1-5; 4:3-4; Tertullian, De praescriptione, 4, 33). Polycarp (Ad Phil., 7, 2) echoes his master John.
The Apocalypse is the prophetic tableau of the struggle between Christ and the Antichrist, as St. Irenaeus notes (Adv. Haereses, V, 30, 3; PG 7, 1207; and in Eusebius, Hist. ecc., III, 18), or rather between the two collectivities (Church and unbelieving world) that rally to them.
The Beast from the sea (Rev 13:1-8), derived from Daniel, blaspheming and fighting and conquering the saints of God, over whom Babylon sits (ch. 17), is the political Antichrist, that is, the power and worldly civilization then centered in Rome. The Beast from the earth (Rev 13:11-17) is subordinate to it as its “prophet” (Rev 16:13; 19:20; 20:10): it is a pseudoprophet (pseudochrist) and, as “high priest of the Antichrist” (Hippolytus), with prodigies seduces the peoples to worship the first Beast. The two Beasts represent the perpetual Antichrist under its two aspects, political and intellectual (domination and propaganda, power and seduction). The enemy who stirs up and directs the entire antichristian struggle is Satan (the Dragon), who, however, does not intervene openly (Rev 2:24). Having failed to devour Christ (Rev 12:4-5), cast down to earth he persecutes the “other children” of the Woman and launches against humanity two terrestrial lieutenants (the two Beasts), just as Christ has his two witnesses (Rev 11:1-13) who are a single reality (the Church). According to a constant rhythm, the opposition between Christ and the Antichrist is painted in symmetrical antithesis: both are of the earth (Rev 15:5; 2:7; 13:2; 7); Christ is lion and lamb (Rev 5:5-6), the Antichrist is a hybrid beast (Rev 13:2); the Lamb (Christ) has seven horns and seven eyes (Rev 5:6: “the seven spirits of God”; Rev 4:5), the Beast has seven heads and seven horns (Rev 17:9: “the seven emperors”); Christ and the Antichrist are enthroned (Rev 14; Rev 13:4, 12). The Antichrist is thus the caricature of Christ, and the kingdom of sin is the sacrilegious counterfeit of the kingdom of God. To the features of Antiochus IV already current to describe the Antichrist, the Apocalypse covertly adds those of Nero (Rev 13:18; Rev 17:8-12). The Apocalypse also distinguishes the two times: the struggle against the antichristian forces of persecution and persuasion is already extremely bitter, attested in heaven by the confessors and martyrs (Rev 2:10-11; 7:14; 12:9-11; 14:12-13; 20:4), but will culminate at the end of time with the unleashing of satanic powers, which will finally be defeated forever (Rev 16:13-16; Rev 20:7-10). The Apocalypse of Elijah and almost all the expositors (except Ticonius) until the 17th century saw in Rev 11:3-13 the struggle of the Antichrist against Enoch and Elijah.
The Didache 16:3-4 announces for “the last days” the multiplication of pseudoprophets and corrupters, among whom will emerge the deceiver of the world posing as the Son of God (πνεῦσαι καὶ κωμῳδῶν ὡς υἱὸς θεοῦ), who will perform prodigies and dominate the earth. The Epistle of Barnabas announces the imminent final apostasy (4:3: “τὰ πάλιν σημεῖα”; 9:6-7; 17:7; 7:7). “Except for Daniel (Dan 7:7 ff.), it recommends “resisting” (as 1 Pet 5:9) during the period of impiety (ἐν τῷ ἀνόμῳ καὶ κενῷ) so that “the Black One” (4:9: ὁ Μέλας), that is, the Antichrist, may not enter stealthily.
The Fathers regard the Antichrist as a false Messiah, an instrument of Satan; the Messiah awaited by Judaism is for Christians the Antichrist (E. A. Sophokles, Greek Lexikon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, New York 1900, p. 192): “Antipistum pro Xpisto recepturi sunt” (Origen, op. cit., p. 31). Generally they consider him a Jew of the tribe of Dan (Irenaeus, V, 3; Hippolytus, De Antichristo; Jerome, In Danielem, XI; Ambrose, De benedictionibus Patriarcharum 7; Augustine, Quaestio 22 in Josue; Theodore; Andrew of Caesarea; Gregory the Great, Isidore, Bede; this is admitted as probable up to St. Antoninus, 15th century), or “a king of the Jews” (Primasius). The sad privilege of Dan is deduced from Gen 49:17 and from the omission of his name in Rev 7:5-8. Sometimes Nero redivivus is considered the Antichrist (Cyril of Jerusalem), with the title “king of the Jews” (Victorinus of Pettau) or as a precursor of the Jew of Dan (Commodian, Lactantius). Later Jews will make of “the man of sin” a son of Satan and of a woman (Simeon ben Johai; Apocalypse of Daniel). In modern times J. Mariana, Scholia in V. ac N.T., Madrid 1610, revived the legend, circulated around 300 by Victorinus (Comm. in Apoc., 17:9-16) and Commodian (Carmen apolog., 825; Instructions, I, 41, 7), which identified the Antichrist with Nero redivivus; E. Renan transformed it into an axiom on which he based his interpretation of the Apocalypse (L’Antéchrist, Paris 1873). For Renan, as for other rationalists, the Antichrist is a popular legend; W. Bousset claims for it historical-religious, psychological, folkloristic importance.
It would seem that the coalescence of the conception of the Antichrist into a single person occurred in late Jewish apocalyptic (1st century), whence it passed to Christians. From the 2nd century to the present, the almost unanimous opinion of Catholics, along with certain distinguished Protestant exegetes (Th. Zahn, G. Wohlenberg), admitted the Antichrist as an individual person; F. Suárez (De mysteriis vitae Christi, disp. 54, sect. I, n. 7) declares this “res certissima et de fide,” and recently B. Rigaux has amply supported the thesis of the individual Antichrist, concluding (p. 397): “In both the New and the Old Testament, the final opposition to the kingdom of God, though collective, is concretized in an individual.”
It must not, however, be appealed to as a doctrinal tradition; “in these eschatological matters there is no tradition whatever” (D. Buzy). On the other hand, the Fathers have not ignored that the Antichrist can be understood as a collectivity. Origen (In Matth. 48) understands the Antichrist also in a spiritual and collective sense. Ticonius (4th century) inclines toward the collective interpretation. Augustine, while admitting the individual Antichrist, observes regarding 2 Thess 2 (De Civ. Dei, XX, 19): “Nonnulli non ipsum principem, sed universum quodammodo corpus eius, id est ad eum pertinentem hominum multitudinem simul cum ipso suo principe hoc loco intelligi Antichristum volunt,” and concludes: “Alius ergo sic, alius autem sic Apostoli obscura verba concitata.” And already before him Lactantius sometimes seems to understand the Antichrist as a collective and enduring reality (Instit., VII, 19 describes its disappearance thus: “Si extincta malitia et impietate compressa, requiescet orbis, qui per tot saecula, subiectus errori ac sceleri, nefandam pertulit servitutem”). Gerhoh of Reichersberg (d. 1169) admits only a collective Antichrist. In the end, moreover, all those who assign as the central theme of the Apocalypse the struggle of the Church with the Antichrist, from St. Irenaeus to C. Rösch (1941) and A. Van der Heeren (1941), must have in mind a collective Antichrist, since “the expectation of a personal Antichrist seems absolutely foreign to the entire Apocalypse” (B. Allo, p. 94).
The individual Antichrist does not appear to be depicted in biblical writings. In the New Testament, “the man of sin” in 2 Thessalonians, the Antichrists of the Johannine epistles, the two Beasts of the Apocalypse, and the pseudochrists and pseudoprophets (with the abomination of desolation, q.v.) of the Synoptic Apocalypse are various descriptions of the same opposition to God and Christ (B. Rigaux, p. 386). Now, this impious opposition always appears in a collective form. The only passage adduced in favor of an individual Antichrist is 2 Thessalonians 2:3–12 (B. Rigaux, pp. 275–87). But the entire context forbids interpreting “the man of sin” here as a single man who will be born and live at the end of time, since he already exists (vv. 4–7) inasmuch as “the mystery of iniquity is already at work” (v. 7); at the end there will be his full manifestation or parousia, which for now is hindered by the obstacle (τὸ κατέχον).
“The obstacle,” which seems to be (as noted by St. Thomas Aquinas, followed by B. Allo and D. Buzy) the true preaching of the Gospel (convergence of 2 Thessalonians 2:3–12 with Matt. 23:11–12; 24; 1 Tim. 4:1–2, where apostasy is linked to false preaching; Rev. 11:6–7), operating as “the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18; Rom. 1:16), is a present and enduring reality that prevents the wicked one from revealing himself in all the activity of Satan, not from being born. Since the obstacle is simultaneous and opposed to the man of sin, the nature of the latter must be established in coherence with that of the obstacle, which is consistently regarded as a collective power that will persist until the last generation. The sign of Christ’s parousia is not the existence of the Antichrist, but his triumphal appearance in the deceitful power of Satan. By employing the personification widely diffused especially by Daniel (Antiochus IV Epiphanes: q.v., V. 8, τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ), Paul gives a personal aspect to the collective and enduring power of evil, thus conferring dramatic movement to the antithesis (cf. 1 Cor. 4:6). The man of sin may be called individual only insofar as he embodies a type. One may even admit, as a hypothesis, that the power of evil will finally be wielded “by a future man who will know all the forces of iniquity” (B. Allo, p. cxiv). Yet from the apostolic age onward, we have been living in “the last times” (1 Cor. 10:11), and Jesus’ victorious campaign against his enemy is already underway (John 16:33; Rev. 2:27; Eph. 1:21–22); the parousia of Jesus will mark the decisive clash, the denouement of eternal triumph, after the final convulsion of the monster.
This collective interpretation of the Antichrist, advanced today among Catholics by P. Pierini and B. Allo and keenly advocated by D. Buzy, followed by J. Bonsirven (*Épîtres de s. Jean*, Paris 1935, p. 133) and by F. Amiot (*L’enseignement de s. Paul*, 2nd ed., Paris 1946, pp. 211–14), accords with the New Testament conception of the kingdom of evil opposed to the Kingdom of God realized by Christ. The Antichrist is implicit in Paul’s phrases about the dark power that governs this world, a kingdom opposed to the Kingdom of Christ (Eph. 6:12; Col. 1:13; cf. Luke 22:53) because it is ruled by Satan, “the prince of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). The Antichrist is characterized by proud pomp of universal dominion and by imposture. He asserts himself through the centuries until he effects the “apostasy”: he is a politico-economic power that dominates the seas and controls all commerce (Rev. 13:17; 18:11–19); master of all means, he irresistibly subjugates and fascinates men with masked violence and flattering promises, and through interest and pleasures alienates them from the heavenly Kingdom (Rev. 13:3–17; 17:3–4; 17–18; 18:9–24). More than directly fighting God, he substitutes himself (ἀντίχριστος) in the hearts of men, this being the only way to annihilate the Kingdom. The Antichrist is an eschatological being, since the eschatological age begins with the first coming of Christ, around which the human drama (death or life, perdition or salvation) unfolds and extends to his final parousia; therefore, from the presence of the Antichrist we must deduce that we are at the final stage of the world (1 John 2:18). Yet only the parousia of the Antichrist with the consequent “apostasy” will be the sign of the imminent end (2 Thess. 2:3–12).
Entirely unfounded is the mythical theory that identifies the Antichrist with Satan. Already hinted at by Celsus (Origen, *Contra Celsum*, 6.42), it is today upheld by H. Gunkel and chiefly by W. Bousset (*Der Antichrist*, Satan incarnate), followed by many non-Catholics such as M. Friedländer and in part by R. H. Charles. Sacred texts distinctly separate Satan from the Antichrist, who is a vast human force operating for the exclusion of God and His Christ, moved and guided by Satan.
Identifications of the Antichrist with particular persons or institutions have been innumerable; W. Bornemann offers an erudite survey of the principal ones. From Caligula and Nero to Napoleon and Stalin, many political figures and rulers have been seen as the Antichrist. In the Middle Ages, expectation of the Antichrist’s parousia intensifies, already with St. Norbert and St. Bernard; Uguccione da Lodi (late 13th c.) and the *Ludus de Antichristo* popularize it; “Spirituals” such as Uberto da Casale brand certain popes as the Antichrist; William of Saint-Amour, Giacomino da Verona, John of Paris, Nicholas de Clémanges treat of the Antichrist for purposes of “reformist” polemic. Often the term is used in a broad execratory sense, e.g., St. Catherine of Siena designates the antipope Clement as “the Antichrist, a member of the devil” (Letter 306). The nearness of the Antichrist is predicted by Fluentino da Firenze (condemned in 1105), by Godfrey of Viterbo (1120–91), by Arnald of Villanova (condemned in 1311), and by many Joachimites, by Bartholomew Jasso (condemned by Urban VI), by the Bohemian Milic (for the years 1365–67), by St. Vincent Ferrer (*De fine mundi et Antichristo*, 1412), by Manfred of Vercelli, by the Sienese Sigismondo Tizio (d. 1528), in connection with the expected end of the world. The Fifth Lateran Council (Session XI, Constitution *Supernae maiestatis*, Dec. 19, 1516: *Mansi*, XXII, cols. 945–47) had to forbid preachers from announcing the imminent Antichrist. Yet even the Venerable B. Holzhauser (d. 1658) predicted the birth of the Antichrist for the mid-1850s and his slaying for 1911.
Launched by J. Wycliffe, the identification of the Antichrist with the reigning pope was propagated by Luther (as early as 1520) (H. Grisar, *Luthers Kampfbilder*, fasc. 1–4, Freiburg 1921–23). This became a Protestant commonplace, though refuted by Bellarmine (*De Romano Pontifice*, III) and by J. A. Eudæmon-Jordan (*De Antichristo*, II, 3 *adversus Rob. Abbottum Oxoniensem*, Ingolstadt 1609), yet persisted
Modern Studies. — W. Bornemann, *Die Thessalonicherbriefe* (in *Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das N. T.* by H. A. W. Meyer), Göttingen 1894, pp. 348-75, 400-59, 550-706; W. Bousset, *Der Antichrist in der Überlieferung des Judentums, des Neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche. Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung der Apokalypse*, Göttingen 1895 (with extensive “religionsgeschichtlich” apparatus); id., s. V. in *Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics* by J. Hastings, I (1908), pp. 578-81; id., *Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter* (3rd ed. by H. Gressmann), Tübingen 1926, pp. 254 sqq., 516 sq.; R. H. Charles, *The Ascension of Isaiah*, London 1900, pp. LIII-LVII; id., *The Revelation of St. John*, II, Edinburgh 1920, pp. 80-90; M. Friedländer, *Der Antichrist in den vorschriftlichen jüdischen Quellen*, Göttingen 1901; C. Chauvin, *Histoire de l’Antichrist d’après la Bible et les Saints Pères*, Paris 1903; G. Wohlensberg, *Der erste und zweite Thessalonicherbrief* (in *Kommentar zum N. T.* by Th. Zahn), Leipzig 1903, 2nd ed. 1909, pp. 141-58, 177-223; A. L. Leman, *L’Antichrist: choses certaines, choses probables, choses indécises, choses fantaisistes*, Lille 1905 (Italian trans. by B. Neri, Turin 1908, 2nd ed. 1910); P. Pierini, *De Antichristo*, Perugia 1906; A. L. Lemannyer, in *Dictionnaire de la Bible*, I, cols. 145-50; J.-M. Vosté, *Commentarium in Epistolas ad Thessalonicenses*, Rome-Paris 1917, pp. 194-221, 263-88; I. L. Ratton, *Antichrist: An Historical Review*, London 1917; B. Allo, *L’Apocalypse*, Paris 1921, pp. cxi-cxxi, 182-86, 198-214, 277-79; F. Prat, *La Théologie de S. Paul*, I, 12th ed., Paris 1924, pp. 94-99; D. Buzy, in *Dictionnaire de la Bible*, Supplement, fasc. I-II (1926), cols. 207-305; id., *L’adversaire et l’obstacle (II Thes. 2, 3-12)*, in *Recherches de Science religieuse*, 24 (1914), pp. 402-31 (refuting B. Rigaux); J. Sickenberger, *Die Johannesapokalypse und Rom*, in *Biblische Zeitschrift*, 17 (1926), pp. 270-82 (on the Antichrist-Papacy of Protestant writers); J. Kaufmann, s.V. Antichrist, in *Encyclopaedia Judaica*, II, cols. 906-10; B. Rigaux, *L’Antichrist et l’opposition au royaume messianique dans l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament*, Gembloux-Paris 1932 (the most extensive recent Catholic study); F. Alcañiz, *Ecclesia Patristica et millenarismus*, Granada 1933, pp. 11-22, 27, 40-42, 99; J. Bonsirven, *Le Judaïsme palestinien au temps de J.-C.*, I, Paris 1934, pp. 464-65; L. G. Randell, *The Mystery of Iniquity and its Historical Aspects*, in *Bibliotheca Sacra*, 91 (1934), pp. 354-68; G. Ritter, *Das Judentum und die Schatten des Antichrist*, 3rd ed., Graz 1938; J. Kroon, *De Antichrist*, in *Studien*, 70 (1938, 1), pp. 204-12; J. M. Bover, *El principio de autoridad, obstáculo a la aparición del Anticristo: un texto misterioso de S. Pablo (II Thes. 2, 3-8)*, in *Razón y Fé*, 118 (1939), pp. 94-103; J. Holzner, *L’Apostolo Paolo* (Italian trans.), Brescia 1939, pp. 284-95; J. B. Orchard, *St. Paul and the Book of Daniel*, in *Biblia*, 20 (1939), pp. 172-79; E. Lohmeyer, s. V. in *Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum*, I, Leipzig 1942, pp. 450-57; A. Arrighetti, *L’Anticristo*, Turin 1945; P. H. Furfey, *The Mystery of Lawlessness*, in *Catholic Biblical Quarterly*, 8 (1946), pp. 179-91.
On the Antichrist in popular conception and medieval literature: E. Wadstein, *Die eschatologische Ideengruppe: Antichrist, Weltabend, Weltende und Weltgericht*, Leipzig 1896; H. Preuss, *Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter*, Leipzig 1906; E. Bernheim, *Mittelalterliche Zeitanschauungen in ihrem Einfluss auf Politik und Geschichtschreibung*, I, Tübingen 1918, p. 70 sqq.; G. Hasenkamp, *Das Spiel vom Antichrist*, Münster 1933; L. U. Lucken, *Antichrist and the Prophets of Antichrist in the Chester Cycle*, Washington (Catholic University) 1940.