All the saints and elect of God are gath­ered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which over­whelms the world because of our sins. -Pseudo-Ephraem (c. 374-627)

Critics of pretribulationism sometimes state that belief in the rapture is a doctrinal development of recent origin. They argue that the doctrine of the rap­ture or any semblance of it was completely unknown before the early 1800s and the writings of John Nelson Darby.[1] One of the most vocal and sensational critics of the rapture is Dave MacPherson, who argues that, ” during the first 18 centuries of the Christian era, believers were never ‘ Rapture separaters’ [sic]; they never separated the minor Rapture aspect of the Second Coming of Christ from the Second Coming itself.” [2]

A second critic, John Bray, also vehemently op­poses a pre­tribulational rapture, writing, ” this teaching is not a RECOVERY of truth once taught and then neglected. No, it never was taught- for 1800 years nearly no one knew anything about such a scheme.” [3] More recently, pre-trib opponent Robert Van Kampen proclaimed, ” The pretribulational rapture position with its dualparousias was unheard of in church history prior to 1830.” [4] In our previous issue of Pre-Trib Perspectives, I noted that pre-wrath advocate Marvin Rosenthal has also joined the chorus.[5]

Christian reconstructionists have also consis­tently and almost universally condemned premillennialism and pretribulationism, favoring instead, postmillennialism. One sample of their prolific and often vitriolic opposition can be seen in Gary North’ s derisive description of the rapture as ” the Church’ s hoped-for Escape Hatch on the world’ s sinking ship,” which he, like MacPherson, believes was invented in 1830.[6]

How to Find the Rapture in History

Is pretribulationism as theologically bankrupt as its critics profess, or are there answers to these charges? If there are reasonable answers, then the burden of proof and historical argumentation shifts back to the critics. Rapture critics must acknowledge and interact with the historical and theological evidence.

Rapture critic William Bell has formulated three criteria for establishing the validity of a historical citation regarding the rapture. If any of his three criteria are met, then he acknowledges it is ” of crucial importance, if found, whether by direct statement or clear inference.” As will be seen, the Pseudo-Ephraem sermon meets not one, but two of his canons, namely, ” Any mention that Christ’ s second coming was to consist of more than one phase, separated by an interval of years,” and ” any mention that Christ was to remove the church from the earth before the tribulation period.” [7]

Pseudo-Ephraem’s Rapture Statement

I vividly remember the phone call at my office late one afternoon from Canadian prophecy teacher and writer Grant Jeffrey.[8] He told me that he had found an ancient pre-trib rapture statement. I said, “Let’s hear it.” He read the following to me over the phone:

All the saints and elect of God are gath­ered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which over­whelms the world because of our sins.

I said that it sure sounds like a pre-trib statement and began to fire at him all the questions I have since received many times when telling others about the statement from Pseudo-Ephraem’s sermon On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World.[9] Grant’s phone call started me on journey through many of the substantial libraries throughout the Washington, D.C. area in an effort to learn all I could about this historically significant statement. The more information I acquired, the more it led me to conclude that Grant is right to conclude that this is a pre-trib rapture statement of antiquity.

Who is Pseudo-Ephraem?

The word “Pseudo” (Greek for false) is a prefix attached by scholars to the name of a famous historical person or book of the Bible when one writes using that name. Pseudo-Ephraem claims that his sermon was written by Ephraem of Nisibis (306-73), considered to be the greatest figure in the history of the Syrian church. He was well-known for his poetics, rejection of rationalism, and confrontations with the heresies of Marcion, Mani, and the Arians. As a poet, exegete, and theologian, his style was similar to that of the Jewish midrashic and targumic traditions and he favored a contemplative approach to spirituality. So popular were his works that in the fifth and sixth centuries he was adopted by several Christian communities as a spiritual father and role model. His many works, some of doubtful authenticity, were soon translated from Syriac into Greek, Armenian, and Latin.

It is not at all unreasonable to expect that a prolific and prominent figure such as Ephraem would have writings ascribed to him. While there is little support for Ephraem as the author of the Sermon on the End of the World, Caspari and Alexander have demonstrated that Pseudo-Ephraem was “heavily influenced by the genuine works of Ephraem.”[10] What is more difficult, though secondary to the main purpose of this article, is determining the exact date, purpose, location of, and extent of subsequent editorial changes to the sermon.[11]

Suggestions on the date of the writing of the original sermon range from as early as Wilhelm Bousset’s 373 date,[12] to Caspari’s estimation of sometime between 565 and 627.[13] Paul Alexander, after reviewing all the argumentation, favors a date for the final form similar to that suggested by Caspari,[14] but Alexander also states simply, “It will indeed not be easy to decide on the matter.”[15] All are clear that it had to have been written before the spread and domination of Islam.

Pseudo-Ephraem’s Sermon

The sermon con­sists of just under 1500 words, divided into ten sections and has been preserved in four Latin manuscripts. Three of these date from the eighth century and ascribe the sermon to Ephraem. A fourth manuscript from the ninth century, claims not Ephraem, but Isidore of Seville (d. 636) as author.[16] Additionally, there are subsequent Greek and Syriac versions of the sermon which have raised questions regarding the language of the original manuscript. On the basis of lexical analysis and study of the bib­lical citations within the sermon with Latin, Greek, and Syriac versions of the Bible, Alexander believed it most probable that the homily was composed in Syriac, translated first into Greek, and then into Latin from the Greek.[17]Regardless of the original language, the vocabulary and style of the extant copies are con­sistent with the writings of Ephraem and his era. It appears likely that the sermon was written near the time of Ephraem and underwent slight change during subsequent coping.

What is most significant for present-day readers is the fact that the sermon was popular enough to be translated into sev­eral languages fairly soon after its composi­tion. The significance of the sermon for us today is that it represents a prophetic view of a pre-trib rapture within the orthodox circles of its day.

The sermon is built around the three themes of the title On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World and proceeds chronologically. The fact that the pre-trib statement occurs in section 2, while the antichrist and tribulation are developed throughout the middle sections, followed by Christ’s second coming to the earth in the final section supports a pre-trib sequence. This characteristic of the sermon fits the first criteria outlined by William Bell, namely “that Christ’ s second coming was to consist of more than one phase, separated by an interval of years.” Thus, phase one is the rapture statement from section 2; the interval of 3 1/2 years, 42 months, and 1,260 days, said to be the tribulation in sections 7 and 8; the second phase of Christ’s return is noted in section 10 and said to take place “when the three and a half years have been completed.”[18]

Why Pseudo-Ephraem’s Statement is Pretribulational

After learning of Pseudo-Ephraem’s rapture statement, I shared it with a number of colleagues. My favorite approach was to simply read the statement, free of any introductory remarks, and ask what they thought. Every person, whether pre-trib or not, concluded that it was some kind of pre-trib statement. A few thought it was a statement from such pre-trib proponents like John Walvoord or Charles Ryrie. Most noted the clear statement concerning the removal of believers before the tribulation as a reason for thinking the statement pre-trib. This is Bell’s second criteria for identifying a pre-trib statement from the past, namely, “any mention that Christ was to remove the church from the earth before the tribulation period.” Note the following reasons why this should be taken as a pre-trib statement:

1) Section 2 of the sermon begins with a statement about imminency: “We ought to understand thoroughly therefore, my brothers, what is imminent [Latin “immineat”] or overhanging.”[19] This is similar to the modern pre-trib view of imminency and considering the subsequent rapture statements supports a pre-trib scenario.

2) As I break down the rapture statement, notice the following observations:

• “All the saints and elect of God are gathered . . .” Gathered where? A later clause says they “are taken to the Lord.” Where is the Lord? Earlier in the paragraph the sermon speaks of “the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion. . .” Thus the movement is from the earth toward the Lord who is apparently in heaven. Once again, in conformity to a translation scenario found in the pre-trib teaching.

• The next phrase says that the gathering takes place “prior to the tribulation that is to come. . .” so we see that the event is pretribulational and the tribulation is future to the time in which Pseudo-Ephraem wrote.

• The purpose for the gathering was so that they would not “see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of their sins.” Here we have the purpose of the tribulation judgments stated and that was to be a time of judgment upon the world because of their sin, thus, the church was to be taken out.

3) Finally, Byzantine scholar Paul Alexander clearly believed that Pseudo-Ephraem was teaching what we call today a pre-trib rapture. According to Alexander, most Byzantine apocalypses were concerned with how Christians would survive the time of severe persecution by Antichrist. The normal approach given by other apocalyptic texts was a shortening of the time to three and a half years, enabling the survival of some Christians.[20] Unlike those texts, this sermon has Christians being removed from the time of tribulation. Alexander observed:

It is probably no accident that Pseudo-Ephraem does not mention the shortening of the time intervals for the Antichrist’s persecution, for if prior to it the Elect are ‘taken to the Lord,’ i.e., participate at least in some measure in beatitude, there is no need for further mitigating action on their behalf. The Gathering of the Elect according to Pseudo-Ephraem is an alternative to the shortening of the time intervals.[21]

Conclusion

Regardless of what else the writer of this sermon believed, he did believe that all believers would be removed before the tribulation- a pre-trib rapture view. Thus, we have seen that those who have said that there was no one before 1830 who taught the pre-trib rapture position will have to revise their statements by well over 1,000 years. This statement does not prove the pre-trib position, only the Bible can do that, but it should change many people’s historical views on the matter.

 

Endnotes
[1]Portions of this article will appear in an expanded form in the July 1995 edition of Bibliotheca Sacra in an article entitled “the Rapture and an Early Medieval Citation.”

[2]Dave MacPherson, The Great Rapture Hoax (Fletcher, NC: New Puritan Library, 1983), 15. For a refutation of MacPherson’s charges see Thomas D. Ice, “Why the Doctrine of the Pretribulational Rapture Did Not Begin with Margaret Macdonald,” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990): 155-68.

[3]John L. Bray, The Origin of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Teaching (Lakeland, FL.: John L. Bray Ministry, 1982), 31-32.

[4]Robert Van Kampen, The Sign (Wheaton, IL.: Crossway Books, 1992), 445.

[5]Thomas Ice, “Is The Pre-Trib Rapture A Satanic Deception?” Pre-Trib Perspectives (II:1; March 1995):1-3.

[6]Gary North, Rapture Fever: Why Dispensationalism is Paralyzed (Tyler, TX.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1993), 105.

[7]William E. Bell, ” A Critical Evaluation of the Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1967mm 26-27.

[8]For more information on the Pseudo-Ephraem statement see Grant R. Jeffrey, Final Warning (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 1995). Forthcoming, Timothy Demy and Thomas Ice, “The Rapture and an Early Medieval Citation” Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (July 1995): 300-11. Grant R. Jeffrey, “A Pretribulational Rapture Statement in the Early Medieval Church” in Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, ed., When the Trumpet Sounds: Today’s Foremost Authorities Speak Out on End-Time Controversies (Eugene, Or: Harvest House, 1995).

[9]Grant Jeffrey found the statement in Paul J. Alexander, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, by (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 2.10. The late Alexander found the sermon in C. P. Caspari, ed. Briefe, Abhandlungen und Predigten aus den zwei letzten Jahrhunderten des kirchlichen Altertums und dem Anfang des Mittelaters, (Christiania, 1890), 208-20. This German work also contains Caspari’s commentary on the sermon on pages 429-72.

[10]Paul J. Alexander, “The Diffusion of Byzantine Apocalypses in the Medieval West and the Beginnings of Joachimism,” in Prophecy and Millenarianism: Essays in Honour of Marjorie Reeves, ed. Ann Williams (Essex, U.K. : Longman, 1980), 59.

[11]Paul J. Alexander, “Medieval Apocalypses as Historical Sources,”American Historical Review 73 (1968): 1017. In this essay Alexander addresses in-depth the historical difficulties facing the interpreter of such texts. To these difficulties, issues of theological interpretation and concern must also be added.

[12]W. Bousset, The Antichrist Legend, trans. A. H. Keane (London: Hutchinson and Co., 1896), 33-41. An early date is also accepted by Andrew R. Anderson, Alexander’s Gate: Gog and Magog and the Enclosed Nations.Monographs of the Mediaeval Academy of America, no. 5. (Cambridge, MA.: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1932):16-18.

[13]Caspari, 437-42.

[14]Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, 147. This leaves the possibility that the work may have been altered or revised prior to the date of the extant manuscripts.

[15]Ibid., 145. Earlier, he writes: “All that is certain, is as Caspari pointed out, that it must have been written prior to Heraclius’ victories over Sassanid Persia, for the author talks repeatedly of wars between Rome and Persia and such discussions do not make sense after Heraclius’ victories and the beginning of the Arab invasions” (144).

[16]Ibid., 136-37. The only critical edition is Caspari’s which suffers a lack of objectivity in that he relied upon only two of the four extant manuscripts.

[17]Ibid., 140-44.

[18]Caspari, 219. English citations are taken from a translation of the sermon provided by Cameron Rhoades, instructor of Latin at Tyndale Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, TX.

[19]Ibid., 210.

[20] Alexander, 209.

[21]Ibid., 210-11.

The comprehensive sweep of the Bible, as it looks at history from God’ s point of view and then presents the glorious future that is awaiting the child of God, gives the Christian a life of meaningful activity, a system of values that transcends the materialism of our day, and a glorious hope in a world where there is much happiness.[1]

– John F. Walvoord

On December 20, 2002 one of the giants of the church went home to be with the Lord. John F. Walvoord, theologian, writer, and teacher, seminary president, and defender of dispensational pretribulational premillennialism passed from our midst. He was 92 years old. It would not be an overstatement to say that Dr. Walvoord was the foremost proponent of pretribulationism and one of the world’ s leading interpreters of Bible prophecy. We will miss him! However, as giants are prone to do, he has left behind a great legacy.

Dr. Walvoord came to Dallas Seminary in 1931 as a student and remained there until his death in 2002. Over 70 years at a single institution must be some kind of a record! Virtually every one who has ever gone through Dallas Seminary has brushed shoulders with John Walvoord. I was privileged to have learned eschatology in the late 1970s under his tutelage while a student at the Seminary.

Eschatological Theologian

In the eschatology (study of last things) class that I took from Dr. Walvoord, he gave us a handout the first day of about 278 questions on the subject. (I made the mistake of lending my copy out and never saw it again.) He told us that if we could answer all of those questions, then we would know something about eschatology. The class consisted of him lecturing through all of those questions, without using any notes other than his Bible. Dr. Walvoord was such a clear and straightforward professor. He knew what all the views on any issue were and presented them fairly before he would turn his attention toward providing a biblically accurate and incisive critique. He handled the most pressing questions with ease and biblical clarity, which produced convincing results. Students in my class often competed with one another in an effort to ask a question that Dr. Walvoord was unfamiliar with or would make him look bad. They never succeeded.

I always sat on the front row of his class, right in front of his lectern, because I liked being close to Dr. Walvoord, and, more importantly, because I tape recorded his classes. I have listened to his lectures many times over the years and am always amazed at his grasp of the theology of God’ s Word. As a theologian he could correlate all the facts, synthesize them into theology, and show anyone the implications of his own views and where others went astray. As a student, I never dreamed that later I would have the privilege of speaking at about a dozen conferences with Dr. Walvoord. Usually there would be a time of questions and answers from the audience at these conferences. I would often defer to my former teacher in these situations because I would be just as interested in his answer as the questioner.

Why The Rapture Matters

I once heard Dr. Walvoord say that earlier in his career he focused upon broader prophetic concerns, like premillennialism, postmillennialism and amillennialism. However, over time and after much thought and discussion he realized that the same hermeneutical, exegetical and theological issues were involved in the rapture question. He came to believe that when one made a consistent application of interpretative methods, exegesis of Scripture and theological thought, there were only two consistent positions: amillennialism and pretibulational premillennialism. This is why, by the 1950s, Dr. Walvoord started focusing his attention upon the rapture question.

Of course, he believed the New Testament taught pretribulationism, but he also saw that the pre-trib rapture doctrine formed the first line of defense for premillennialism as well. He believed that when one abandoned pretribulationism, that individual was on a slippery slop toward the eschatological valley of allegoricalism known as amillennialism. He believed that consistent literal interpretation led to pretribulationism. Any departure from pretribulationism (for example mid-trib or post-trib) must involve some degree of allegorical interpretation. I heard him say that if you are going to allegorize at all then you might as well allegorize everything and become a consistent allegorizer by adopting amillennialism and be done with it. Dr. Walvoord’ s keen theological mind saw where things led.

Dr. Walvoord was asked a few years ago ” what do you predict will be the most significant theological issues over the next ten years?” His answer included the following: ” the hermeneutical problem of not interpreting the Bible literally, especially the prophetic areas. The church today is engulfed in the idea that one cannot interpret prophecy literally.” [2] Such is the trend almost ten years later. Today too many evangelicals want to blend literal and non-literal hermeneutics. According to Dr. Walvoord, it cannot be legitimately done, without producing a confused and contradictory mix of eschatology.

A Single Type of Pretribulationism

Another of Dr. Walvoord’ s insights includes the observation that there is a single kind of approach to developing and defending pretribulationism. What does he mean? When it comes to pre-trib rationale, there are not multiple systems that have reached the same conclusion- pretribulationism. In other words, all pretribulationists use the same hermeneutic, generally the same exegesis and theologically the same thought process in arriving at pretribulationism. Dr. Walvoord believed that this detail hints at the fact that pretribulationism is likely what the Bible teaches.

On the other hand, posttribulationism has four distinct ways in which they argue for their belief. Dr. Walvoord use to say that if any single one of these four approaches were true, then it would mean that the other three systems were wrong and would contradict the form of posttribulationism that was posited as true. In other words, there could be incorrect views of posttribulationism, even if the view was posited as being correct. While there is only a single form of pretribulationism, which if true, would make sense since the Bible teaches a single view on any issue.

Four Kinds of Posttribulationism

Dr. Walvoord has classified the four kinds of posttribulationism as classical, semi-classical, futuristic and dispensational.[3] ” In the last century a number of varieties of posttribulationism have emerged, some of them quite recent in their major tenets,” declares Dr. Walvoord. ” In general, they cover the gamut of the possibilities.” [4] Note the following breakout by Dr. Walvoord:

1) Classic Posttribulationism- ” J. Barton Payne, in his The Imminent Appearing of Christ,[5] advocates a return to what he says was the position of the early church, that is, a premillennial and posttribulational point of view which spiritualizes the tribulation and identifies it with the contemporary problems of Christianity. Comparatively few have followed Payne, however, though a tendency to spiritualize the period of tribulation is a general characteristic of posttribulationism.” [6]

2) Semi-Classic Posttribulationism- ” Alexander Reese, in his The Approaching Advent of Christ,[7] presents the most comprehensive defense of posttribulationism.” [8] ” He offers evidence that the resurrection of the church occurs at the same time as the resurrection of Revelation 20. Major emphasis is placed on terms like ‘ appearing,’ ‘ the day,’ ‘ the end,’ and ‘ revelation’ as technical terms that relate the rapture to the second coming as the terminus of the present age. Reese’s arguments have not been surpassed by other posttribulationists, but later writers offer other approaches.” [9]

” All the views previously mentioned consider the church already in the tribulation and identify the trials of the church through the centuries as the fulfillment of prophecies of a time of trouble preceding the second advent of Christ.” [10]

3) Futuristic Posttribulationism- ” George Ladd whose work, The Blessed Hope,[11] promotes the view that the great tribulation is still future. While other views of posttribulationism could conceivably be harmonized with the idea that Christ could return any moment, Ladd considers it inevitable that at least a seven-year period (described in Dan. 9:27) separates the church today from the rapture and the second advent of Christ which are aspects of the same event. Although Ladd’s argument builds largely on the fact of the history of the doctrine and extols posttribulationism as the norm for orthodoxy through the centuries, he introduces a new realism into the picture in adopting a literal future tribulation. His views have somewhat been qualified by his later writings, but in general he seems to retain a futuristic view of the great tribulation with its corresponding doctrine that Christ’s return could not be any day, but that it can only follow the years required to fulfill prophecies relating to the tribulation.” [12]

4 Dispensational Posttribulationism- ” Robert Gundry in his work, The Church and the Tribulation.[13] Gundry, following the lead of many premillenarians, distinguishes Israel and the church as separate entities and attempts a literal interpretation of many of the prophecies that deal with the endtimes. In advancing his theory he refutes most of the posttribulationists who have preceded him. Working with these premises, he endeavors to establish a new doctrine of posttribulationism which he tries to harmonize with a literal interpretation of prophecy.” [14]

” Gundry’s work poses a number of theological problems both for other posttribulationists and for contemporary pretribulationists. Because his arguments, in the main, are new and establish a new form of posttribulationism never advanced before, his work is a milestone in the variety of interpretations which have characterized posttribulationism through the centuries and creates further need for study of posttribulationism in the history of the church.” [15]

It is interesting to take note of Dr. Walvoord’ s classification of differing types of posttribulationism in light of the often made claims that pretribulationism is of recent vintage (around 1830). With the death of Payne in the 1970s, no one of significance even holds his classical view of posttribulationism. The semi-classical view of Reese is rarely held as well. Both of the views require the historicist view of prophecy, which almost no one holds to apart from Seventh-Day Adventist and Mormon influence. This means that the last two forms of posttribulationism, which are views that almost all premillennial posttribulationists advocate today, were developed after pretribulational futurism came on the scene. This means that the systematic approach of virtually all premillennial posttribulationism is newer than pretribulationism. This is a fact little understood in premillennial posttribulational circles. This should be a cause for pause and reflection on their part before suggesting that there is a problem with the history of pretribulationism.

Conclusion

The Walvoord legacy is one of hope- Blessed Hope![16] He used his considerable skills and long life to help believers better understand God’ s plan for history and for the individual Christian. Over the years as I have spoken at Bible prophecy conferences across America, I have had a number of people come up to me and tell me that Dr. Walvoord had been their pastor at Rosen Heights Presbyterian Church in Fort Worth, Texas. They have all said that Dr. Walvoord use to tell them (this was in the 1930s and 40s) that he would live to see the rapture. Obviously he did not make it. But John F. Walvoord will certainly be a recipient of the crown of righteousness that will be handed out at the judgment seat of Christ. ” In the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.” (2 Tim. 4:8) I can’ t wait to see him at that awards ceremony. Maranatha!

 

Endnotes
[1] Statement taken from the back panel of the bulletin obtained at the memorial service for John F. Walvoord, ” The Bible: Cornerstone of John F. Walvoord’ s Life,” final paragraph.

[2] ” An Interview: Dr. John F. Walvoord Looks at Dallas Seminary,” Dallas Connection (Winter 1994, Vol. 1, No. 3), p. 4.

[3] John F. Walvoord, The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1976), pp. 16- 19.

[4] Walvoord, Blessed Hope, p. 17.

[5] J. Barton Payne, The Imminent Appearing of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962).

[6] Walvoord, Blessed Hope, p. 17.

[7] Alexander Reese, The Approaching Advent of Christ (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1937).

[8] Walvoord, Blessed Hope, p. 17.

[9] John F. Walvoord, ” Posttribulationism Today, Part I: The Rise of Posttribulational Interpretation, Bibliotheca Sacra (January- March 1975; Vol. 132, No. 525), p. 22.

[10] Walvoord, Blessed Hope, p. 18.

[11] George E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956).

[12] Walvoord, Blessed Hope, pp. 18- 19.

[13] Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973).

[14] Walvoord, Blessed Hope, p. 19.

[15] Walvoord, ” Posttribulationism Today,” p. 24.

[16] For anyone interested in reading about the life of Dr. Walvoord, his auto biography came out about a year before his death. John F. Walvoord with Mal Couch, Blessed Hope: The Autobiography of John F. Walvoord (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2001).