?The complete lack (?) of a correct use of concepts makes Loren?s book weak. One can nicely describe how early Judaism was thinking about negative eschatological figures, or about evil protagonists of the ? Heilsgeschichte? (and in this descriptive part Lorein made a valuable work). But labelling these figures with a term that is entirely lacking from the studied corpus is conceptually nonsense. (?) In its details, the book is interesting. A good part of the Introduction (1-26) is a comprehensive Forschungsgeschichte, focusing on the monograph-length treatments of the Antichrist in the past century, from Bousset to Lietaert Peerbolte. At the end of this long passage, the reader finds a subchapter on ? The problem of Definition? (25-26). Unfortunately, after reading these two pages, the intended definition of Lorein remains a problem (?) After this, a chapter on the Antichrist in the New Testament and early Christianity follows. The ? Conclusion and Definition? of it (29), is especially useless from the viewpoint of the entire thesis: the Antichrist figure depicted in this manner is so vague that nearly every negative protagonist of religious writing can fit into it. (?) In the so-called ?intertestamental period? we cannot find an Antichrist. Wat we can indeed find are the ?antecedents? of this figure, as Lietaet-Bolte has demonstrated nearly a decade ago.I am afraid that Loren?s book cannot in any sense replace that predecessor.? (GÉZA XERAVITS INJournal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period, 2006, pp.131-132).