Pictorial hagiographic narrative plays one of the key roles in the medieval Christian imagination and didactics. Analysis of pictorial cycles is, however, traditionally focused just on following the extent of their connections to textual models. The prevailing view is that the pictorial legend can simply be ʻread’ as a story. What precisely ʻreading’ this kind of pictorial narrative means has been the subject of debate for more than two decades. Elisabeth Sears, for example, understands ʻreading’ as an ʻinterpretation from a certain perspective,’ while in her view ʻreading’ more suitably includes the eye working together with the mind. Interpretation is based on a detailed analysis of the work within the given functional and contextual framework, and on the understanding of its pictorial conventions and relationships and the imaging mechanisms of the given genre. The meaning of the work is deciphered by uncovering the internal logic of the work within the framework of its relationships and contexts and by an understanding of the process of the interpretative act, not just of its time but quite frequently of our time, too. Small details play an important role in this process, just as the organization, overall construction, and the media presentation of the narration do. Similarly to a written legend, which is intended to be read before a specific community, in the case of the pictorial narrative the foreseen viewers – as an intended community of interpretation – are joint creators of the meaning of the narrative and they determine its accents, narrative processes and, to a certain extent, the selection of written and pictorial sources. The relationship of the textual patterning and the pictorial treatment is multivalent – something that is all the more true for the pictorial narrative of the anticharacter, as the Antichrist is in Christian teaching. There the modeling of the narrative itself, done in accordance with legend-making procedures, creates an ambivalent relationship. Even when the pictorial narrative closely follows the textual model, there may be a potential ‘difference’ in the meaning of the narrative between the text and the images that conveys certain meanings outside the text. Using the example of the Antichrist cycle in the Velislav Bible, I focus on the ways in which pictorial means are used to create the ‘difference’ that is specific to the pictorial cycle and expresses an argument addressing a particular community of viewers.